Present:       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

                                                President.

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

                                                Member

                                               And

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

 Wednesday, the 4^th day of June, 2008.

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 186/1999

Between:

1. Katukuri Rama Devi, W/o. Late K.Sambashiva Reddy,

Age:35 Years,  Occu: Hosuehold

R/o. Kamalapur (V & M), Karimnagar Dist.

     2.  Katukuri Athmaja, D/o. Late K.Sambashiva Reddy,

Age:10 Years,  Occu: Student

R/o. Kamalapur (V & M), Karimnagar Dist

3   Katukuri Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Late K.Sambashiva Reddy,

Age:6 Years,  Occu: Student.

R/o. Kamalapur (V & M), Karimnagar Dist              

Complainant 2 and 3 being minors rep by their

Mother ( Natural Guardian)                                              … Complainants

AND

1.       Sri Ravi Nursing Home

          Rep by its Proprietor Dr V.Vishwanadta Rao,

          Main Road, Kazipet Warangal District.

2.       National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          Br. Office P.B.No.84

          JPN Road, Warangal

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainants    : Sri. T. Jithender Rao,  Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties          No.1: Sri.V. Harihara Rao,   Advocate.

Counsel for the Opposite party No.2 :Sri Y.Manohara  Rao, Advocate.

                                                    ORDER

    Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.

          This is a complaint filed by the complainants against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay 1,50,000/- towards compensation.

          The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

  The complainant No.1 stated that her husband was brought to the opposite party No.1 Nursing Home as he was suffering with fever on 4-9-98 and he examined by the duty doctor of opposite party by name Dr.Jayasri and expressed her opinion that the admission in the hospital is not necessary and therefore refused to admit the patient in nursing Home.  At that time Dr.Vishwanath Rao was not present.  Therefore the complainant along with the patient waited for some time and again approached Dr.Vishwanath Rao for second opinion.  After examining the patient Dr.Vishwanatha Rao advised to join the patient in the hospital as fever was high.  On the advice of the said doctor the patient was admitted in the said Nursing Home on 4-9-1998, the temperature was 104 F and chills and vomiting sensation.  For those ailments medicines were prescribed and the same were given to the patient.  By the next day i.e.,on 5-9-1998 the temperature came down.  On 4-9-98 the blood and urine tests were done.  As the fever came down on 5-9-98 the doctor said that he would discharge the patient in the evening of that day.  On 5-9-98 the doctor has prescribed some medicines but the said prescription chit was given in the name of Sadanamdam but the name of the patient was Sambasiva Reddy.  Not only on 5^th September but also on 6^th and 7^th September also the medicines administered to the deceased Sambashiva Reddy according to the prescription chit given in the name of one Sadanandam.  On 5^th September the temperature was raised.  On 7^th September in addition to the above mentioned prescribed medicines 2 injections first time another 2 injections second time brought from the opposite party hospital were given.  Thereafter the patient complained itchina all over the body and uneasiness.  Immediately the doctor was called then two injections were given, and oxygen was arranged but after half an hour the patient died.  Immediately after the death of the patient the hospital staff forced the complainants to remove the dead body immediately from the hospital.  The hospital authorities arranged the jeep to take dead body to the village of the complainants.  The contention of the complainant is that death was taken place due to negligence on the part of the doctors. They have not only given the wrong medicines i.e, the medicines prescribed to Sadananadam but very much negligent in treating the patient.  This amounts to deficiency of service.

          Opposite parties contention is that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 because they themselves has clearly examined the patient and gave medicines to the patient and fever was came down but only mistake done by them only by mistake they have written the name Sadanandam inspite of writing the name of Sambashiva Reddy.   They have written sadanandam but the medicines prescribed on that they are only for Sambashiva Reddy.

The complainants in support of their claim, filed the Affidavit of complainant No.1 in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-10.  On behalf of Opposite parties Sri V.Vishwanatha Rao, filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 and B-2.

Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation from the opposite parties with costs.

This Forum has been granted number of adjournments for the arguments of both side counsels, and further this Forum granted conditional order on 13-05-2008 stating that both the parties should come and argue the matter on the next date of hearing.  Both the Advocates called absent.  This shows that they have no interest.  On the basis of evidence of PW-1, RW-1 and also the documents filed by both the parties, we are delivering the judgment.

          After gone through the entire records we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation of amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.

 We also accept with the contention of opposite party No.1 and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 because opposite party No.1 clearly stated that on 4-9-98 the patient was suffering with 104 temperature and has been suffering with chills and vomiting sensation.  For those ailments medicines were prescribed on the next day the temperature came down.  As per Ex.B-2 Case sheet it clearly goes to show about the treatment given by the doctors.  The prescriptions contained 3 medicines which are meant for treatment of the patient those medicines are also found

in case sheet i.e, Ex.B-2 dated 5-9-98. The medicines prescribed in case sheet i.e., Ex.B-2 i.e, Aciloc Amp. is meant for Antacid to control gastric problem and acidity, and Voveran is meant for fever and body pain and Phenegram is meant for vomiting.   So those medicines clearly goes to show that the treatment given by the doctor was to control the diseases of the deceased only.  And further he also send the blood sample to Malaria Department where from he received a report as RNH/601 M.P. Negative which means Malarial parasite not present in the blood snicar. As per the doctor he opined that the cause of death of the deceased is only due to MYO CARDITIS.

          The complainant did not examine any one of the expert before this Forum to say that due to deficiency of service of opposite party No.1 the deceased died.  The complainants contention is that her husband Sambashiva Reddy died due to deficiency of service of the Doctor and staff of Ravi Nursing home.  To prove that she has not examined any one of the doctor and further she has not examined any one of the doctor to say that her husband died due to MyoCarditis or any other disease.  If she examined any one of the doctor i.e, Expert and if he states that the deceased died other than Myo Carditis certainly this forum can believe that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1, but in this case no expert evidence of the doctor was examined by the complainant.  In the absence of expert opinion this Forum cannot come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. 

As per citation cited by Opposite party No.1 in 2003 1 CPR 222 (NC)

Dr. S. Gurunathan                                      … Complainant

    Vs

Vijaya Health Centre                        … Opposite party

Held at Consumer protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Medical Negligence – Surgical mismanagement – Foot injury with diabetic gangrene – Limb salvage of infected Diabetic Foot ulcers with Micro surgical free – Muscle Transfer – No expert evidence on record to

suggest that reconstructive surgery was not the correct method to treat the foot – Complainant’s plea that amputation was the only approach, held unsustainable”.

          So, the above citation case it is clear that expert evidence must be there from complainant side to prove the disease.  In the present case also the complainants stated due to negligence treatment given by Opposite party No.2 the deceased died.  For this she has not examined any expert doctor from her side.  So the above cited judgment is applicable to the case of the opposite parties against the complainant side.

          In another citation 1999 (3) CPR 38 (NC)

Tarachand Jain                                           .. Complainant

           VS

Ganga Ram Hospital & another                          .. Opposite parties

Sections 2 and 14 – Medical Negligence – Complainant was operated for prostate on 11-9-1990 and was discharged on 15-9-1990 – Problem of continuous urine flow alleged continued – Allegation that sphincter muscle of complainant was cut during operation and there was incontinence (leaking of urine) – Complainant could not built up the case merely by producing letter from Doctor who was initially consulted by complainant in Opposite party hospital – complainant did not take steps to produce that doctor in support of his case – Prescription issued by another doctor did not sow that sphncter muscle was cut during operation – No cogent convincing and reliable evidence produced in support of allegations made in complaint – No medical expert produced – Complainant could not be held to have proved charge of negligence or deficiency in service”.

          So the above cited judgment also clearly applicable to the case of Opposite parties against the complainant. In the present case also the complainants have not examined any expert doctor from their side.    

          Another citation in (2001) 8 Supreme Court cases 731 in

Vinitha Ashok                                   … Appellant

    Vs

Lakshmi Hosptial and others             … Respondents

Held that Professional opinion should be able to with stand logical analysis in order to be described as reasonable and responsible and doctor would be liable for negligence regardless of his diagnosis and treatment being approved by a body of professional opinion, if such opinion is not established to be reasonable or responsible – but certain experts had stopped use of D & C method would not be of significance.  National Commission rightly dismissed Appellant’s claim for compensation.

          The facts of the above case are that State Commisison stated that the doctors himself liable and responsible for any thing with regard to logical analysis in the presence of doctor evidence.  In the present case also the expert doctor has not examined.  So in the absence of expert doctor opinion we cannot say that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.   

      Further the counsel for complainant cited AIR 1969 Supreme Court 128

      Dr.R.S.Bchawat J.M.Shelat and A.N.Grover J..

It is true the doctor has to take care towards his patient.  But in the present case the complainant has not proved that doctor has not taken care.  In the presence of above cited citation by us with regard to the expert opinion and  the absence of expert opinion from the complainant side this judgment is not at all applicable for the present case facts.  So it is not applicable for complainant side. 

On the basis of above cited judgments by us from opposite parties, this judgment clearly goes to show that compulsory the complainant  has to examine expert to prove her case by way of saying that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

After gone through the evidence of PW-1, as well as Ex.B-2 and  Exs.A-1 to A-10 it is clear that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  With regard to changing of name Sadanandam inspite of mentioning the name of Sambashiva Reddy they wrongly mentioned the name as Sadanandam but medicines prescribed in the said prescription   Ex.A-10 only for the decreasing of the disease of the deceased.  Since we did not find out any where deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No1, we come to the conclusion that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 and the complainants are not entitled to get anything from Opposite party No.1. 

          With regard to opposite party No.2 i.e, Insurance.  If really there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1 it is the duty of the complainant that she has to inform immediately about the death of her husband to the insurance.  As per Ex.B-1 in Bank Clause at page NO.3 i.e, clause 8  (1) (2) to 8.5 it clearly goes to show that the insured shall give written notice to the company as soon as reasonably practicable of any claim made against the insured and which forms the subject of indemnity under this policy and shall give all such additional information as the company may require.  Every claim, writ summons or process and all documents relating to the event shall be forwarded to the company immediately they are reeived by the insured.

          The insured shall give notice as soon as reasonable practicable of any fact, event or circumstance which materially changes the information supplied to the company at the time of when this policy was effected and the company may amend the terms of this policy. 

          So as per Clause 8 of the conditions it is the duty of the insured he has to informed the things immediately to the insurance.  In this case the complainants are not intimated anything to the insurance.  The documents filed by the complainants except the doctor prescriptions and reports nothing was filed.  So insurance is not liable to pay anything to the complainant.

          We already decided the matter by way of saying that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1 and opposite party No.2 also not liable to pay anything to the complainants.

          Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of opposite parties against the complainant.

Point No.2: To what relief: The first point is decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant, this point also decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant.

          In the result this complaint is dismissed, but without costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 4^th June, 2008)

                                                     Sd/-                     Sd/-             Sd/-

                                                Member                 Member       President,

                                                   District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant                          On behalf of Opposite Party

Affidavit of complainant filed                         Affidavit on behalf of O.P filed.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

1. Ex.A-1 Prescription issued by O.P.1 Dt:04-9-1998
2. Ex.A-2 Widal Report issued by Sri.Ravi Nursing Home Dt:4-9-98
3. Ex.A-3. Blood Report issued by Sri.Ravi Nursing Home Dt:4-9-98
4. Ex.A-4 Urine  Report issued by Sri.Ravi Nursing Home Dt:4-9-98.
5. Ex.A-5 Routine Bio-Chemical investigations Report issued by Sri.Ravi Nursing Home Dt:4-9-98.
6. Ex.A-6 Prescription issued by O.P.1 Dt:05-9-1998.
7. Ex.A-7 Prescription issued by O.P.1 Dt:06-9-1998.
8. Ex-A-8 Blood Report issued by Sri.Ravi Nursing Home Dt:7-9-98
9. Ex-A-9 Routine Bio-Chemical investigations Report issued by Sri.Ravi Nursing Home Dt:7-9-98
10. Ex.A-10 Prescription issued by O.P.1 Dt:07-9-1998

 On behalf of Opposite party.

1.                 Ex.B-1 Policy Professional Indemnity Policy for Doctors and Medical Practitioners 

2.                Ex-B-2 Case Sheet Issued by O.P.            

                                                               Sd/-

                                                          President.