BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.1150 OF 2005 AGAINST C.D.NO.224/2002 District Forum, MAHABOOBNAGAR.
Between:
Banda Krishnaiah, S/o.Ramanna, 53 years,
Occ:Agrl. R/o.Laxmipuram Village
Narayanapet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist., ..Appellant/
Complainant
And
S.V.S.Hospital, Yenugonda (V),
Mahaboobnagar (Mandal) & Dist.,
Mahaboobnagar, rep. by its Superintendent. Respondent/
Opp.party.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.K.Gopal
Counsel for the Respondent: Respondent served.
QUORUM:THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
Oral Order : (Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
***
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to set aside the dismissal order passed by the District Forum, Mahaboobnagar in C.D.No.224/2002 dated19-7-2005.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant’s son, Mr.Rajesh, aged 21 years was suffering from severe abdominal pain and he along with the complainant went to opposite party hospital on 30-6-2001 at 12.00 midnight. The Duty Medical Officer examined him and diagnosed the disease as Appendicitis and on his advice, the complainant got his son admitted in the hospital. After conducting clinical and pathological tests, the doctors informed the complainant that they have to conduct surgery for Appendectomy and accordingly on 1-7-2001 at about 11.00 a.m. Dr.Anil and Dr.Malla Reddy of opposite party hospital conducted the surgery. The complainant submitted that he paid Rs.9,504/- towards initial payment of hospital charges The doctors who conducted the surgery informed the complainant that stitches would be removed after one week. The complainant submitted that his son got conscious but pain subsisted even after surgery and five days after surgery, he observed that stitches were torn and some fluid was oozing out and he informed the same to opposite party doctors and they turned a deaf ear and tried to pacify him. The complainant submitted that even after 20 years of surgery, the fluid was coming out of the stitches and the doctors did not remove the stitches. The complainant submitted that he and his relative asked the doctors to discharge the patient to enable them to take to Hyderabad for better treatment but the doctors advised him to wait for two more days and that they would change the medicines. Inspite of waiting for two days, there was no progress and it is the case of the complainant that stitches were not done properly after the surgery which resulted in infection of wound and swelling. On 4-8-2001 the patient died and the complainant alleged that it was due to careless and negligent treatment given by the doctor of opposite party hospital. He gave a complaint in rural Police Station, Mahaboobnagar on 5-8-2001 and a case in crime No.142/2001 was registered. The police held inquest over the dead body and the body was subjected to post mortem examination. The doctor who performed post mortem examination opined that the cause of death was septic shock due to wound infection and the complainant alleges that this was because of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of doctors of opposite party hospital. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party hospital to pay Rs.75,000/- spent by him towards medical and other expenses incurred for the treatment of his son, pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation together with costs.
Opposite party filed counter and admitted that the son of the complainant, Mr.B.Rajesh, was brought to the causality of opposite party hospital during midnight of 30-6-2001 with a complaint of abdominal pain and fever. The duty doctor examined him primarily and thereafter the Specialist also examined him and advised him to admit as inpatient. They also admitted that various clinical and pathological tests were conducted on the patient and he was advised surgery and that they conducted surgery on the patient. They denied that the doctors, who conducted surgery informed the complainant that the stitches would be removed after one week and that five days of surgery, the stitches were found torn. They also denied that they have not removed the stitches even after 20 days and submitted that the stitches were removed after 9 days after the surgery and the wound was dressed. They also denied that the complainant and his relative requested to discharge the patient to enable them to take him to Hyderabad for better treatment. They admitted that the health condition of the patient did not improve inspite of giving treatment and that he died on 5-8-2001 in the early hours. They submitted that the doctors of opposite party hospital could not save him inspite of best possible treatment. They admitted that the complainant lodged a police complaint and a case was registered and the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. They denied that the death was due to carelessness and negligence of opposite party hospital doctors. They submitted that when the deceased attended the hospital on 30-6-2001, he was admitted as in patient, necessary investigations were done and surgery was advised. The patient was operated by Dr.Anil and during laparotomy found that caecum ilium found adherent forming a glue mass. Apart from that purulent fluid of about 800 cc was found and the fluid was sucked out and the patient was closed with drain. They submitted that they took required care on the patient in the said process and he was also attended post operatively. There was soiling from the drain side and dressings were done and the complainant is under the impression that soiling of drain site as oozing of fluid due to torn out stitches. They submitted that the stitches were removed after 9 days and the wound was dressed everyday and they gave medicines regularly. The infection of wound was not due to improper stitches after the surgery. Sepsis is from within the abdomen and the drain is kept to drain the infected fluid from the abdomen and they used antibiotics on the patient appropriately. Drugs were changed based on culture and sensitivity of pus reported by Microbiology Department. The disease progressively resulted into faecal fistula and as the patient had not improved, supportive therapy like blood transfusion was also given and submitted that there is absolutely no negligence and that they have taken all precautions, good post operative care but the infection was not controlled and ultimately the patient died. They further submitted that there are complicated issues involved in the matter requiring recording of evidence of experts and the Forum cannot decide the case and only Civil Court is competent an prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The District Forum based on the evidence i.e. Exs.A1 to A161 and B1 & B2 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The point for determination is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable.
The appellant submits that the District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and gave a finding which is not sustainable. The District Forum ought not to have relied on Ex.B2, expert opinion, which is a xerox copy. The District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.W.1, who is a Civil Asst.Surgeon in Government Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the son of the appellant and the death was septic shock due to wound infection. The District Forum ought to have relied on the post mortem report which disclosed that the death was septic shock due to wound infection. As per Ex.B2 and Ex.A159, post mortem examination, the cause of death is due to septic shock. The appellant further submitted that there was negligence on the part of opposite party hospital, who conducted operation and prayed that the order passed by the District Forum be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
The respondent resisted the plea that the District Forum has appreciated the evidence on record and relied on the expert opinion Ex.B2, and alleged that the post mortem report Ex.A159 cannot be relied. The burden of proof lies on the appellant/complainant to prove the claim.
The appellant has filed Exs.A1 to A161 in support of his case and the respondent filed Exs.B1 and B2.
There is no dispute that the appellant being father of the deceased has filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the hospital authorities. There is no dispute that the complainant’s son, Rajesh was suffering from severe abdomen pain and was taken to respondent hospital on 30-6-2001 and the duty doctor examined him and diagnosed the disease as Appendicitis. After conducting clinical and pathological tests, the patient was advised to undergo surgery for appendicitis. On 1-7-2001, appendicitis operation was conducted by Dr.Anil and Dr.Malla Reddy. The complainant has paid Rs.9,504/- towards initial payment of hospital charges. The complainant’s son died on 4-8-2001 and he gave a complaint to the Rural Police Station, Mahaboobnagar on 5-8-2001. A criminal case was registered in crime No.142/2001 and the police also conducted post mortem and inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
The appellant firstly contended that Ex.B2, expert opinion, xerox copy and as original expert opinion was not filed, it could not be taken into consideration and the District Forum ought not to have relied on Ex.B2 report. The submission made by the appellant is not sustainable, when the said xerox copy of the report is filed, the appellant did not take any objection. We have gone through expert opinion, Ex.B2 dated 29-10-2004 given by Dr.M.Narayana Reddy, Professor & Head, Dept., of Forensic Medicine, OMC & OGH, Hyderabad and Dr.Rajender, Professor of Surgery, OMC/OGH, Hyderabad
