A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 ATHYDERABAD.

F.A. 626/2006 against C.D. 98/2005 , Dist. Forum, Chittoor. 

Between:

Smt. Putta Narayanamma

W/o. Late Sidda Rami Reddy

Age: 75 years,

R/o. Venkamaddivari Palle

H/o. T. Sateevaripalem

Chinna Gottigallu Mandal

Chittoor Dist.Dr. D. V. Rama Mohan Reddy

Age: 45 years,

Sai Super Speciality Dental Clinic

Opp. Satyanarayana Medicals

L.B.S. Road, Piler,

Chittoor District.                                                                                               

Counsel for the Appellant:                         

Counsel for the Respondent:                     

QUORUM:

MONDAY, THE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

           ppellant is unsuccessful complainant. 

She visited one Dr. Parthasarathi at Tirupathi who in turn referred her to SVIMS.     Vellore, the doctors after conducting clinical tests opined that        

               bonafide            

For the notice      While in the notice, she stated that      documents to show that            and other complications could be due to old age  Vellore     

          CMCHospital,Vellore, and got marked Exs. A1 to A17.    

The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined       

Dr. Parthasarathi also gave a letter under Ex. A9 without            

She alleges that she developed neurological deficit, loss of eye sight etc. Vellore             

Earlier when she was referred to Dr. Bindu Menon  

The Complainant filed affidavit evidence of       Even otherwise she was in advanced age of 75 years and the extraction of    

It is reasonable to assume that she got these teeth extracted                Vellore         in relation to 13, 14 region.”      

As we have earlier pointed out that some medicines were prescribed.   

InPunjab 

      India

Thirdly, when it comes to the failure of taking precautions, what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience  

Their Lordships 

No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to the patient as the professional reputation of the person is at stake. A single failure may cost him dear in his career. Even in civil jurisdiction, the rule of.

At least three weighty considerations can be pointed out which any Forum trying the issue of medical negligence in any jurisdiction must keep in mind. These are: (i) that legal and disciplinary procedures should be properly founded on firm, moral and scientific grounds; (ii) that patients will be better served if the real causes of harm are properly identified and appropriately acted upon; and (iii) that many incidents involve a contribution from more than one person, and the tendency is to blame the last identifiable element in the chain of causation the person holding the ‘smoking gun’.

Coming to the facts, it is not in dispute that the respondent is professionally competent to extract teeth         Vellore.     fact or law   

In the result the appeal is dismissed.