Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/5/2011

Bathula Buramma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Professor Vishnu Vardana Reddy - Opp.Party(s)

Y. Ramakrishna Rao

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                                                    Date of filing:   03.01.2011

                                                                                                Date of Order: 02.11.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

                                                       PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

              Monday, the 2^nd day of November, 2015

 

C.C.No.05 /2011

Between:-

 

Bathula Buramma, W/o. Venkateswara Rao,

Hindu, aged about 43 years, Housewife,

r/o. D.No.3-396, Military Colony, Katheru,

Rajahmundry Rural.                                                                                                                   …   Complainant

 

                        And

 

1)  Professor Vishnu Vardan Reddy, aged 45 years,

      Government E.N.T. Hospital (Institute for ENT

      and Head and Neck Diseases), Koti Bank Street,

      Hyderabad.

 

2)  Dr. K.V.S.S.R.K. Sastry, M.S. Consultant,

      ENT Head and Neck Surgeon, Yashoda Hospital,

      Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500 082.

 

3)  Dr. Nandipati Ramakrishna, M.S. running hospital under

      the name and style of Sri Ramya ENT Hospital and Micro

      Surgery Center, Near Kotipalli Bus Stand, by the side of

      Road cum Rail Bridge, Rajahmundry.                                                                                           …  Opposite parties

 

 

            This case coming on 15.10.2015 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri Y. Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri K. Vijayendra Reddy, Advocate for the 1^st opposite party and Sri Ch. Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Smt.H.V. Ramana, President(FAC)] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards re-operation; pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and for damages; pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards medicines and physician and treatment charges; pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of service to family member; pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of earnings; award interest at 24% p.a.  from the date of operation on 20.10.2008 in Yashoda Hospital, opposite party No.2 collected money from Government of Andhra Pradesh to the date of realization for damages and award costs of complaint.

2.         The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant submitted that due to problem in her tongue, she approached Dr. Nandipati Rama Krishna, MS (ENT) of Sri Ramya and MS Center, Rajahmundry on 2.1.2006, who treated the patient and she underwent treatment up to 5.9.2006. After that referred her to Dr. V. Phanindra Kumar, MS, Member of Voice Foundation of North America, Guntur.  The complainant approached him on 25.1.2006 and he treated her up to 11.12.2006 and advised to go to Vasavi ENT Hospital, Hyderabad.  Accordingly, the complainant approached  Dr. K.R. Meganath on 25.9.2008 and he examined her and referred her to Government ENT Hospital for conducting tests.  The 1^st opposite party examined her and referred her to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad for conducting operation  to her vocal cords in the neck and further informed that they will conduct operation in the presence of specialist of ENT team from America. On 19.10.2009, the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly conducted operation to her BILATERAL VC PALSY ON TRACHEOSTOMY with laser assistance and a tube was inserted to the neck from side and discharged her on 20.10.2008.  Due to failure of operation conducted by the opposite parties 1 and 2, the complainant is unable to speak and her voice became pale and unable to talk clearly.  Prior to admission in Yashoda Hospital, her voice and vocal cords functioning normally, but after conducting operation, she lost her voice.  For conducting operation, the Yashoda Hospital authority collected Rs.1,00,000/- from Government of Andhra Pradesh basing on her white ration card.  On 29.6.2010, the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties and they are served, but they failed to give reply. Hence, the complaint.

3.         The 1^st opposite party filed its written version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable and not having any jurisdiction to file before this Forum. The opposite party submits that he is the professor and head of the department of ENT (Otolaryngology), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad and Civil Surgeon/Professor, ENT (Otologaryngology), Government ENT Hospital, (Institute for ENT and Head and Neck diseases), Koti, Bank street, Hyderbad-500 001 with MS, DLO, DNV, Ph.D., qualifications.  This opposite party stated that the government servant and not an individual practitioner and no such complaint is maintainable against him. The Government hospital is the master of this opposite party, if any, liability is attributed during the course of treatment to the complainant, the vicarious liability lies on the Health department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, but not on this opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable for mis-joinder of 1^st opposite party and non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.  The complainant first approached the 3^rd opposite party on 2.1.2006 and got treated for herself with up to 5.9.2006.  The 3^rd opposite party referred her to Dr. V. Phanindra Kumar, who is the member of Voice Foundation of North America, Brodipet, Guntur and he examined her from 25.11.2006 to 11.12.2006 and advised her to go to Vasavi ENT Hospital, Hyderbad.  Then, she approached Dr. K.V. Meghanath of Vasavi ENT Hospital on 25.9.2008. He examined her and referred her to Government ENT, Koti for conducting tests. The complainant approached the Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderbad on 26.9.2008 as inpatient.  The professor and head of department of ENT, examined her and also gone through the past medical record which reveals that she had undergone thyroidectomy and tracheotomy for bilateral abductor palsy associated with diabetes mellitus, hyptothyroidism and hypertension. When the complainant stayed in the Government ENT Hospital, there was a medical conference known as AOI AP SOUTHCON 2008, Hyderabad, VI Zone and 27^th AOI AP State Conference, 17^th to 19^th October, 2008 at Hyderabad.  Due to the presence of eminent surgeon from overseas and also all over India. On behalf of this association, the AP State Branch for the  year 2007-2008 after due consideration in the Secretary, then the fit/  eligible cases were sought out for the conference for better care of patients to be pass on better technology and treatment by the experts in the field.  The Government ENT Hospital, Koti planned to take up the case of the complainant in the surgery session as the advance treatment (phonosurgery), modality was made available for the said conference by the organizers of the conference.  The complainant was explained about the surgery and also obtained written consent from her. The said AOI AP SOUTH CONFERENCE was conducted in Yashoda Hospital, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad and the complainant was admitted on 19.10.2008 and discharged on 20.10.2008 duly conducting operation of Bilateral V C, Palsy on Tracheostomy with laser assistant by eminent surgeon WVBS Ramalingam. This opposite party along with 2^nd opposite party has not done the surgery and no tracheostomy tube was replaced. The complainant was already having the Tracheotomy tube prior to admission to the Government ENT Hospital. This opposite party is not qualified to perform laser surgery and there is no question of conducting surgery on the complainant on that particular day. After completion of surgery to the complainant, she was shifted to Government ENT Hospital for further post operative care. This opposite party was not present on the venue of operation on 19.10.2008. There is no surgery has done to the neck of the complainant as alleged by her.  The common post operative complication is granulation formation, stenoses due to adhesion which must have also happen to the complainant which needs constant medication and review. Tongue is not involved in the surgery.  The loss of clear speech may be due to stenoses only. The efforts put in by the eminent surgeon to correct the voice box i.e., Larynx might not have been successful for the obvious reasons that the complainant already in the risks of thyroidectomy and tracheostomy for bi-later abductor palsy and was confirmed as Bilateral abductor Palsy associated with Diabetes Mellitus, Hypothyroidism and Hypertension etc.  It is false that Yashoda Hospital collected Rs.1,00,000/- from the Government of Andhra Pradesh basing on the complainant’s white ration card. The complainant was admitted to Government ENT Hospital where there is no practice of collecting fees for any treatment including surgery leave alone Arogyasree Benefits. The complainant has put to strict proof of the allegations made against this opposite party. The complainant admitted in the Government ENT Hospital on 13.11.2008 and got discharged on 27.11.2008 for Bilateral Abductor Palsy and DM.  Again, she was admitted on 5.3.2009 and discharged on 10.4.2009, during that period, the patient was taken care in all respects by the Government ENT Hospital. The complainant filed this case with malafide intention to make wrongful gain from the opposite party. The complainant has not paid even a single rupee to the Government ENT Hospital and there is no need to spend even a single rupee. The surgery was done by eminent surgeon WVBS Ramalingam and there is no negligence on the part of these opposite parties. Before operation, the complainant was briefed about the nature of operation and discussed in detail, though no guarantees have been given for any aspect of the result. It is also informed her that recurrence of the disease is possible due to the factors beyond the doctors control and the hospital staff.  The doctors are not responsible for the complications. All these things are informed to her prior to the surgery.  The Government ENT Hospital is always opened 30 days in a month and 365 days in the year to the needy patients of this nature and will not collect the single rupee from the patients. If she had any ailment, if she brought to the notice of the same to the said ENT Hospital at her problems could have been rectified by now, but she has not come forward before the doctors of the said hospital for the last two years.  She got admitted in the ENT Hospital, Hyderabad on 19.10.2008 and operation was done in Hyderabad and as such, for maintaining the complaint against the 1^st opposite party, the jurisdiction vests with Hyderabad, but not before the Rajahmundry Forum.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. There is no role in conducting the operation of this opposite party and this opposite party is not liable for any claim preferred by the complainant and also there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with costs against this opposite party.   

4.         The 2^nd opposite party filed its written version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant and he also stated that the cause of action arose at Hyderabad, hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as there is no jurisdiction and it is not maintainable either under law or on facts. He also stated that the complainant has not paid any fees. Hence, the dispute does not come within the meaning of consumer under Sub Section 1(d) of Section 2 of C.P. Act, 1986. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The treatment of the complainant was absolutely free of cost provided by IV South Zone ENT Conference hosted by AOI-AP State Branch. The complainant did not even say that she has paid any consideration for the services rendered by this opposite party. He further submitted that the complainant alleged that the Yashoda Hospital has collected a sum of Rs.1 lakh from Government of A.P. being on her white ration card (Argoyasree) is absolutely false and baseless. The government has not paid under Arogyasree to the opposite party and the surgery was done with free of cost by the said conference organized by AOI.  This opposite party is a well qualified ENT surgeon and working in Yashoda Hospital, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad. The complainant wrongly mentioned that she is having a problem in the tongue, but her problem is in her voice box i.e. Larynx. Initially, she approached the opposite party No.3 and he referred the complainant to Dr. V. Phanindra Kumar, Guntur, he treated her up to 11.12.2006, later he referred her to Vasavi ENT Hospital, Hyderabad. She approached Dr. K.R.K. Meganath of Vasavi ENT on 25.9.2008, who in turn referred her to ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad for conducting tests. The ENT Hospital, Hyderabad admitted her on 26.9.2008 and gone through the previous history of her problem and noticed that she has gone thyroidectomy and tracheostomy for bilateral obductor palsy elsewhere and diagnosis was confirmed bilateral abductors palsy associated with diabetes mellitus hypothyroidisam and hypertension. It is also submitted that the IV Zone ENT Conference started from October, 17 to 19^th 2008 wherein eminent surgeons were coming from overseas and also from all over India, planned to take up cases in surgery session during the conference as the advance treatment modality was made available for the conference by the organizers of the conference. The complainant referred for surgery and also explain the mode of treatment and obtained her consent. The surgery was done at Yashoda Hospital as it was the venue for the surgeries during the conference. This opposite party has not conducted the laser surgery and the complainant is already having trachestomy tube prior to admission of Govt. ENT Hospital. She was discharged on 20.10.2008 from Yashoda Hospital and shifted to Govt. ENT Hospital, Hyderabad for post operative care and etc. The 1^st opposite party had referred the complainant to Yashoda Hospital for conducting operation to her vocal cord and the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly conducted operation her is not true and correct.

It is submited that the Manual of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, by James B. Snow, Jr. MD., Professor Emeritus, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, states as follows:

Restoration of Function: Because of the trade-off between airway and vocal quality of other procedures, the ideal treatment of bilateral vocal fold paralysis remains reinnervation, Direct repair of the injured RLN is often unsatisfactory; vocal fold motion  becomes uncoordinated and synkinetic. Tracheostomy and endoscopic procedures, particularly those that make use of the carbondioxide laser, are currently the mainstays of treatment for bilateral vocal fold paralysis. Thus literature says that there is some amount of complications, different results in this type of laser surgery. More so this patient is diabetic, hypothyroid, and hypertensive which may make her more susceptible for more delayed healing and complications. The common post operative complication is granulation formation, stenoses due to adhesion which must have also happened in this patient. In fact the operations done by doctors of AOI were in accordance with well recognized principles of medical jurisprudence. There is absolutely no negligence on the part of this opposite party and the surgery was done at Yashoda Hospital on 19.10.2008 during the IV South Zone ENT Conference hosted by AOI AP State Branch is due to non-availability of laser and expertise at Govt. ENT Hospital. The inability of the complainant doing day to day works not related to loss of her voice. The cause of action arose as alleged by the complainant that this opposite party conducted the surgery at Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, when this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

            The present complaint is barred by limitation since the alleged cause of action dt.20.10.2008 and the complaint is filed on 31.12.2010. Hence, on the ground of limitation alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

5.         The 3^rd opposite party filed its version and the material allegations in the complaint are hereby denied. Even according to the contents of the complaint, the complainant did not plead any medical negligence on the part of this opposite party. In the light of the same and in the light of the contents of the complaint that this opposite party is only added as proforma party, the above complaint may be dismissed with costs against this opposite party.

6.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and also filed a memo stating that she is unable to speak due to loss of speech, hence, the documents filed in the Forum and proof affidavit may be considered. Exs.A1 to A8 have been marked on behalf of the complainant.  The proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 and Exs.B1 to B3 have been marked. The opposite parties 1 & 2 were cross examined by the complainant’s counsel.

7.         Heard the complainant and the opposite parties 2 & 3 and the 1^st opposite party failed to appear before this Forum even inspite of giving several adjournments, therefore, basing on the material available record on hand we treated it as heard.

8.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

 

            Admitted facts of this case are that the complainant is having vocal cord problem since 2006 and she approached the 3^rd opposite party for treatment and he treated her for a period of 9 months vide Ex.A3. After giving the initial treatment, the 3^rd opposite party referred the complainant to Dr. V. Phanindra Kumar of Guntur and he treated her from 25.11.2006 to 11.12.2006 vide Ex.A4 and he advised her to go to Vasavi ENT Hospital, Hyderabad and she approached Dr.K.R. Meghanath on 25.9.2008 vide Ex.A5. After conducting the tests, Dr. Meghanath referred her to Govt. ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad. The 1^st opposite party examined her and gave treatment vide Ex.A6. The complainant also filed Arogyasree Certificate vide Ex.A7. A team of doctors from all over world and also from India are attended for IV South Zone ENT Conference hosted by AOI-AP State Branch. As there is no facility for laser treatment in Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad, they referred her to Yashoda Hospital, where the IV South Zone ENT Conference was held. She filed discharge summary issued by the Yashoda Hospital vide Ex.A8.

The opposite parties are also admitted that she approached the 3^rd opposite party for initial treatment and they referred to Dr. V. Phanindra Kumar, Guntur and also she went to Vasavi ENT Hospital, Hyderabad from there, she went to Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad. The 1^st opposite party filed the brochure of IV South Zone ENT Conference hosted by AOI-AP State Branch vide Ex.B1 and they also filed the case sheet of the complainant where she underwent treatment in the 1^st opposite party hospital vide Ex.B2. The 3^rd opposite party filed the consent form and the other medical records of the complainant vide Ex.B3.

 

9.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:  The complainant submitted that she impleaded the 3^rd opposite party as proforma party. Her main contention is against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties as they both of them did the surgery to her vocal cords and she could not recover from the surgery and she lost her speech due to the surgery done by them. She further contended that they received Rs.1,00,000/- from Arogyasree Scheme for conducting the surgery to her and they are liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenses as there is deficiency in service on their part.

            The main contention of the 1^st opposite party is that he is the employee of the Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad and he is the servant to that hospital. If the complainant attributes, she has to file a case against the Health Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, who are vicariously liable for the acts of the servant. The complainant has not joined the Government ENT hospital and joined the 1^st opposite party to the proceedings shall be dismissed against this opposite party for mis-joinder of the 1^st opposite party and non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. He also further stated that the complainant had undergone Thyroidectomy and Trachestomy for Bilateral Abductor Palsy elsewhere and diagnosis was confirmed as bilateral abductor palsy associated with diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism and hypertension.  During her stay in Government ENT Hospital, there was a medical conference known as IV South Zone ENT Conference hosted by AOI-AP State Conference from 17^th to 19^th October, 2008 at Hyderabad. Due to the presence of eminent surgeons from all over the world after due consultations with the Secretary of the association, the Government ENT Hospital planned to take up the case of the complainant in the surgery session as the advance treatment (Phomosurgery) modality was made available for the said conference by the organizers of the conference. The complainant was explained about the surgery by the eminent surgeon Dr. WVBS Ramalingam and obtained her written consent. The Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderbad was the venue of surgeries to be performed on the patients as per the program of AOI AP South Conference, 2008. The said surgery was done by Dr. WVBS Ramalingam and not by this opposite party. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.B1 Brochure that her surgery was done by Dr. WVBS Ramalingam and not by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party further contended that he was not qualified to perform laser surgery and as such, there is no question of conducting surgery on the complainant. The complainant was undergone surgery on 19.10.2008 and she shifted to Government ENT Hospital, Hyderabad and she took treatment up to 3.11.2010. This opposite party further contended that the 2^nd opposite party collected Rs.1,00,000/- from Government of Andhra Pradesh basing on the complainant’s white ration card, but either the 1^st opposite party or the 2^nd opposite party never took even a single rupee from the complainant.  

            The 2^nd opposite party contended that their hospital is only a venue for IV South Zone ENT Conference and hosted by AOI AP State Branch. The complainant never paid any money and this opposite party never collected Rs.1,00,000/- from Government of Andhra Pradesh under Arogya Sree. This opposite party never conducted any surgery to the complainant, in fact, the inpatient No.899 was on the case sheet of ENT Hospital which has referred case. The operation was conducted on vocal cord under general anesthesia and nothing was done on the neck and in fact the complainant was having pre-existing trachestomy. This opposite party further contended that the alleged cause of action was on 20.10.2008, but the complaint was filed on 31.12.2010. Hence, on the ground of limitation alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            After perusing the material on record and exhibits, it is observed that the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party and took treatment and he referred her to Dr. V. Phanindra Kumar, Guntur and he gave treatment for some time, later he referred her to go to Vasavi ENT Hospital, Hyderabad on 11.12.2006, but as seen from Ex.A5, she approached Vasavi ENT Institute on 27.5.2008, which means after one and half year. After giving treatment by him, he referred the complainant to Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad, she joined on 26.9.2008 as inpatient in the said hospital.

            The complainant is not cross examined by the opposite parties as she could not speak.

The 1^st opposite party in his cross examination submitted that he has prescribed all the necessary examinations and maintained the case sheet of the complainant. On 16.10.2008, the running notes in the case sheet nothing was mentioned with regard to the patient has never sought to send her to AOI Conference by submitting the written application either to me or to my Superintendent. It is true on 20.10.2008, the case sheet was not mentioned that she came after operation from AOI Camp.  The 1^st opposite party stated that he and K.V.S.S.R.K. Sastry are members of AOI Camp and participated in the session. He further stated that in his case sheet, he has not mentioned whether WVBS Ramalingam or Ramulu conducted operation to her vocal cords. He stated that he has not given any appointment to undergo operation with Dr.WVBS Ramalingam and he also not mentioned that he has sent the complainant to Yashoda Hospital for his treatment. He further submitted that he retired from the service in November, 2013.

      The 2^nd opposite party submitted in his cross examination, he is working as ENT and Head and Neck Surgeon in Yashoda Hospital. He also submitted that he has given Ex.A8 to the complainant. He further submitted that the patient was sent by Government ENT Hospital to Yashoda Hospital for the operation purpose of South Zone Conference and further follow up. Again, the patient was transferred to Government ENT Hospital. He admitted that the documents are not mentioned that she was shifted to Government ENT Hospital, Hyderabad. They have not conducted any separate tests to the patient as they are already done by the Government ENT Hospital. It is true that the page 5 of Ex.B3, the surgery was conducted by Dr.WVBS Ramalingam and Dr. Ismail and also stated that  Dr. Ramalingam is a reknowned international faculty in Phomosurgery and laser surgery and he is from Delhi.  It is true that in Ex.A8 discharge summary, the names of the surgeons were not mentioned.

The complainant relied on the following citations:

1. Rajinder Singh Dogra Vs. Dr. P.N. Gupta: I (2013) CPJ 286 (NC), and
2. V. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others: 2015 ACJ 2028 (SC)

The above citations are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present

case on hand.    

                                                The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties relied on the following citations:

1. Satya Prakash Pant Vs. Dr. P.N. Joshi and another: 2015(5) ALD (Cons.) 25 (NC),
2. Mrs. Indira Kartha and others Vs. Dr. Mathew Samuel Kalarickal and another: 2002(3) ALT 49 (NC) (CPA)

The above citations are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present

case on hand.   

            With the discussion held supra, it is observed that the entire medical record was sent to the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kakinada for medical opinion and the department of Prof. & H.O.D. of ENT gave their opinion that after going through the entire medical record of the complainant, they opined that the procedures are in accordance with the latest standard text book protocols for the Bilateral Abductor Paralysis. They also stated that there is no deficiency in service rendered to the patient by the doctors as per the records submitted to them.

            After perusing the record, we observed that in Ex.A3, page No.5, it is clearly mentioned that Dr. WVBS Ramalingam and Dr. Ismail were conducted the operation to the complainant. These doctors were the members of AOI AP South Conference, 2008 and they conducted the operation in Yashoda Hospital. Basing on the above discussion, the opposite parties 1 & 2 were not conducted the operation to the complainant. The complainant has not impleaded the above said doctors, who conducted the operation. The 1^st opposite party is the employee of the Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad was retired in the year 2013 and also clearly stated that he is not competent to conduct such laser surgery to the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party also stated that he never participated in the surgery done to the complainant even though they are the members of AOI AP South Conference, 2008. Their hospital was given as venue to the AOI AP South Conference for conducting the surgeries and these surgeries were done by various doctors, who came from all over the world and also various parts of India. Therefore, we opined that there is no deficiency or negligence on the opposite parties 1 & 2 in conducting the operation to the complainant. The complainant herself mentioned that the 3^rd opposite party was added as proforma party and there is no negligence in his part.

10.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint against the opposite parties is dismissed without costs.   

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the           

2^nd day of November, 2015.

    

                 Sd/-xx                                                                                        Sd/-xx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

         

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:                None.                         

 

 

FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

The 1^st opposite party was examined as R.W.1.

The 2^nd opposite party was examined as R.W.2.

                                                                                   

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1    Lawyers notice dt.29.6.2010 to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A2    Lawyers notice dt.29.6.2010 to the 2^nd opposite party, postal receipt and postal

  acknowledgement letter.

Ex.A3    O.P. card of Sri Ramya ENT & M.S. Center, Kotipalli Bus stand, Rajahmundry

  issued by the opposite party No.3.

Ex.A4    Prescription sheet of Dr. V. Phanindra Kumar of Guntur dt.25.11.2006.

Ex.A5    Vasavi E.N.T. Institute prescription Record with O.P.No.115941 dt.27.5.2008 and

  its 2 letters.

Ex.A6    Government E.N.T. Hospital, Discharge summary with I.P.No.899.

Ex.A7    Rajiv Arogya Sree Referring letter to Koti, ENT Hospital.

Ex.A8    Yashoda Hospital, Discharge summary dt.20.10.2008 with I.P. No.102743.

 

FOR 1^st & 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTIES:-   

 

Ex.B1    Original Brochure of AOI AP SOUTHCON 2008, Hyderabad.

Ex.B2    Xerox copy of Case Sheet of the complainant maintained by Govt. ENT Hospital,

  Koti, Hyderabad.

Ex.B3    Case sheet dt.30.10.2008 belongs to the complainant (attested copy).

 

                  Sd/-xx                                                                                       Sd/-xx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)