Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/31/2014

Vundela Munisubbareddy, S/o. Bala Obula reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Professor Dr. Sipaayi Subramanyam - Opp.Party(s)

In person

11 Dec 2014

ORDER

Filing Date:08.07.2014

Order Date: 11.12.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

THURSDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.31/2014

 

Between

 

V. Munisubba Reddy,

S/o. Bala Obula Reddy,

D.No.2/134, Muddanur Road,

Jammalamadugu,

Kadapa District                                                                                … Complainant

 

 

And

 

Dr.Cipai Subramanyam,

S/o. C.Govinda Reddy,

RUSSH Multi Super Specialty Hospital,

10-14-576, Reddy & Reddy Colony,

Opposite to Municipal Office,

Tiruapti,

Chittoor District.                                                                             …  Opposite party.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 25.11.14 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri. V. Munisubba Reddy, party-in-person for the complainant, and Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the opposite party, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by Sri.V.Munisubba Reddy, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party Dr.C.Subramanyam, alleging that the opposite party treated the complainant by conducting regular open surgery instead of knifeless laparoscopy for hernia operation.

            2.  The brief averments in the complaint are:-  The complainant being attracted by the advertisement given by the opposite party on knifeless laparoscopic operation will be conducted for hernia, he has admitted in the opposite party – hospital, i.e. RUSSH Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupati on 22.05.2014 and paid Rs.28,000/- altogether for the said purpose. The operation was conducted on 22.05.2012 for right side hernia and he was discharged on 27.05.2012. The opposite party conducted regular open surgery instead of knifeless laparoscopic operation as agreed. Due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party in conducting operation, another problem of Hydrocele was developed to the complainant even before discharge, when the same problem was brought to the notice of opposite party, they replied that it will be vanished in few days, that the opposite party is negligent in conducting operation and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

            3.  The opposite party filed his written version stating that the complainant admitted in his hospital on 22.05.2012 but not on 22.05.2014 and was discharged on 27.05.2012. After surgery, the amount has been paid by the complainant is for various tests, for medicine and for injections, that the hospital never undertook to perform such laparoscopic operation for the hernia of the complainant. The said advertisement was given by the opposite party to make known to the public about the facilities available in his hospital. The operation that was conducted on the complainant is open hernioraphy with mesh, taking into consideration of the patient by Dr.Anwar Basha DNB (General Surgery) done surgery under the supervision of opposite party. The said operation of open hernioraphy with mesh was conducted with the consent of the complainant. The opposite party denied that the hernia operation lead to hydrocele. It is not the case of the complainant that operation was not successful and not done properly. The discharge summary was given to the complainant with full details, patient condition was good at the time of discharge. This complaint is filed on 12.05.2014 about 2 years after the operation. The allegations are baseless and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            4.  Both parties have filed their respective chief affidavits, document and written arguments.

            5.  Heard the complainant in person (he being the practice advocate) and the counsel for opposite party.

            6.  Exs.A1 to A7 were marked by the complainant and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of the opposite party.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the opposite party  cheated the complainant? Whether there is

        negligence on the part of the opposite party in conducting the operation?

       If there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?    

(ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation claimed?

(iii). To what result?

8.  Point No.(i):-  The crux of the complainant’s case is that since he was suffering from hernia problem, he was attracted by the advertisement given by the opposite party under Ex.A4 and went to the hospital of opposite party and got admitted himself and open surgery operation was conducted for his right side hernia. The main allegation that was made against the opposite party is that there is an agreement between the complainant and opposite party that the knifeless laparoscopic operation will be conducted for the hernia of the complainant, but contrary to it, the opposite party conducted open general surgery. Thus, the opposite party has cheated the complainant. Another allegation is that open surgery was done by the opposite party without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. That the operation was done negligently. Consequently the complainant suffered from another problem of development of hydrocele,  that the same was brought to the notice of opposite party, they said that it will be vanished in few days, but later they did not respond. On the said ground, the complainant is seeking direction to opposite party to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for cheating the complainant, for causing mental agony and a new problem of hydrocele due to the negligence in conducting operation.

9.  In order to prove the above allegations, the complainant did not file any document. Exs.A1 to A7 that were relied on by the complainant are, Ex.A1 is notice given by him to the opposite party on 12.05.2014 that is nearly 2 years after the operation. Ex.A2 is discharge summary, Ex.A3 is Essentiality Certificate issued by the opposite party, Ex.A4 is the advertisement published by the opposite party i.e. RUSSH Multi Super Specialty Hospital, conveying the public that no knife laparoscopic surgery is available in the said hospital. Ex.A5 is the document issued by RUSSH Multi Super Specialty Hospital, making the public to know about the facilities available in their hospital. Ex.A6 is registration receipt in respect of complainant herein and Ex.A7 is receipt from DTDC courier. There is no iota evidence to show that there is an agreement between the complainant and the opposite party that the complainant opted for knifeless laparoscopy operation for his hernia problem. Similarly, there is no iota evidence to show that consequent upon the open herniorraphy with mesh operation leads to another problem of hydrocele. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion to prove that if any defect is there in the operation conducted that will leads to hydrocele. Ex.B2 consent letter dt:22.05.2012 clearly establish that the son of complainant by name V.Guruvinadha Kumar Reddy, in which it was specifically mentioned as consent letter (Angeekara patramu), diagnosis is specified as right recurrent hernia, operation is shnown as right open herniorraphy with mesh. In the consent letter itself specifically the operation proposed to be conducted is mentioned. In the discharge summary also it was mentioned specifically the name of the operation that was conducted on the complainant. As it was mentioned in Ex.B2 and Ex.A2, charge sheet,  that the operation conducted for the hernia of the complainant is open herniorraphy with mesh, that too after giving consent letter by the son of complainant on behalf of the complainant on 22.05.2012 itself.  Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove alleged cheating, the allegation that the opposite party conducted open herniorraphy with mesh (general surgery) instead of knifeless laparoscopy operation, that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. That apart the complainant for the reasons best known to him did not show Dr.Anwar Basha, who actually conducted the open herniorraphy with mesh operation for the hernia of the complainant, as party to the proceedings. The complainant is also failed to obtain any expert opinion to prove that under any circumstances, the hernia operation leads to further complication of hydrocele. The complainant also did not place any material before the Forum that he is suffering from hydrocele problem right from the date of operation or from next date of the operation and he is taking any treatment from any doctor at any place. Thus the complainant is failed to prove either of the allegations made against the opposite party. Accordingly, this point is answered.

10. Piont No.(ii):- The complainant failed to prove that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party in conducting operation. More particularly the opposite party Dr.C.Subramanyam, is not a doctor, who conducted the open herniorraphy with mesh (general surgery) on the complainant, one Dr.Anwar Basha was the doctor, who, conducted the operation actually and it was mentioned in the written version of the opposite party itself. Similarly, the complainant also failed to prove the alleged cheating against the opposite party. Similarly, he also failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. If any such deficiency in service is there or negligence is there on the part of the opposite party, the complainant ought not to have maintained silence for the last two years. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

11. Point No.(iii):-   In view of our discussion held on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove the allegations that were made against the opposite party and the complaint is devoid of merits  and therefore he is not entitled to the relief sought for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed, no order as to costs.

 

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of December, 2014.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                            

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

PW-1: V.Muni Subba Reddy (Affidavit filed).

RW-1: Dr. Cipai Subramanyam (Chief Evidence Affidavit filed)

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.		Photo copy of notice issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party. Dt: 12.05.2014.
2.		Photo copy of Discharge summary of complainant. Dt: 27.05.2012.
3.		Photo copy of Essentiality certificate of complainant issued by Opposite Party.
4.		Original broacher issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant. Registration No.10825/14.
5.		Case sheet issued by Opposite Party Dated: 07.10.2014.
6.		Copy of registration receipt issued by the Opposite Party. Dt: 07.10.2014
7.		Courier receipt issued by D.T.D.C & Carrgo limited, Jammala Madugu. Dt: 12.04.2014.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.		Attested copies of Discharge Summary of V.Muni subba Reddy. Dt: 27.05.2012.
2.		Attested copy of Consent letter from Complainant for Hernia Operation.  Dt: 22.05.2012.
3.		Bunch of the attested copies of certificates relating to the performance of Dr. C.Subrahmanyam.
4.		Photocopy of relevant extract of text International gold standard book on surgery.

 

                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-     

                                                                                                                President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite party.