Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/11/1493

C.Krishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sagar apollo Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

Before the 4th Addl District consumer forum, 1st Floor, B.M.T.C, B-Block, T.T.M.C, Building, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bengaluru - 560027
J.N. Havanur, President
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/1493
 
1. C.Krishna
S/o late HN Chandrashekariah, Manasvi,Oasis apartments 5th phase, 15th main JPNagr, Bangalore-78.
Bangalore
Karnataka
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sagar apollo Hospital
No.44/54 30th cross, Tilaknagar, Jayanagar Extn., Bangalore-560041.
2. Dr.Sadruddin Shariff
C/o Sagar Appollo Hospital, No.44/54 30th cross, Tilaknagar, Jayanagr Extn. Bangalore-560041.
Bangalore
Karnataka
3. Dr.Shariff
No.332,Darussala, Queens road, Bangalore-52.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. D.SURESH MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. N.R.ROOPA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 31 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Complaint filed on: 10.08.2011

                                                      Disposed on: 31.01.2017

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1493/2011

DATED THIS THE 31st JANUARY OF 2017

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant: -                     

C.Krishna

S/o late H.N.Chandrashekaraiah

‘Manasvi,’ Oasis Apartments

5th Phase, 15th Main,

J.P.Nagar,

Bengaluru-560078

 

By Adv. Sri.Nataraja Ballal

 

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

 

  1. Sagar Apollo Hospital

No.44/54, 30th Cross

Tilaknagar,Jayanagar Extn.,

Bengaluru-560041

 

  For Opposite party No.1

  By Adv. Smt.S.Radha Pyari

 

  1. Dr.Sadruddin Sharif

C/o Sagar Apollo Hospital

 No.44/54, 30th Cross

 Tilaknagar,Jayanagar Extn.,

Bengaluru-560041

 

Opposite party No.2 - Exparte

ORDER

 

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

 

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

 

            The Complainant has been alleging the medical negligence against Opposite party No.1/Sagar Apollo Hospital and its doctor Opposite party No.2/Dr. Sadruddin Sharif in connection with infection after CABG surgery performed on 31.08.2005 and thereby has claimed the compensation amount of Rs.14,44,219/- with interest and litigation costs.

 

          2. The Complainant has filed application u/s 5 seeking condonation of delay in filing this complaint relying on the observation made in WP18058 of 2007 dated 14.06.2011.

 

          3. The Complainant/the officer of Canara bank, was advised by Dr.A.Gopi/interventional cardiologist and  underwent CABG surgery on 31.08.2005 in the Opposite party No.1 Sagar Apollo Hospital, Tilak nagar, Jayanagar. It was conducted by Opposite party No.2 Dr.Sadruddin Sharif as supported by Ex-A1 discharge summary dated 7-9-2005 at the cost of Rs.1,98,811.80. He was later diagnosed as infected from Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Scanty Growth) in ExA-3. It was due to lack of cleanliness in the hospital when he stayed till 07.09.2005 and hence he was again treated till 20.09.2005 at the cost of Rs.68,861.68 as shown in Ex-A2 Bill, lab report Ex-A3/A-7and medical bill Ex.A-4 of September 2005.. The continued infection made him to stay in his brother’s house which is 15 k.m. away to get the advice from Opposite party No.2 by visiting private clinic for dressing and treatment which continued till 03.11.2005. The infection still continued and hence on the advice of other doctors underwent operation for the removal of steel wire inserted during CABG surgery and got discharged on 09.11.2005 from Wockhardt Hospital, As per Ex-A5 and A6 Reports and bills  at the cost of Rs.27,000/-. The infection persisted and hence he was constrained to took further treatment at Omni Hospital at Chandigarh on 19.12.2005 at the cost of Rs.57,219/-.as per Ex-A8 to A10. He was again because of same infection was constrained to undergo treatment in (October) 5.10.2006 at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital at the cost of Rs.1,53,000/- as supported by records Ex-A11. The said infection made him to undergo one more operation to remove infected bones on 06.06.2006 at Wockhardt Hospital at the cost of Rs.27,000/-.  Then he realized that the said infection lead to staphylococcus Aureus which made him to suffer for his life time. He spent Rs.1 lakh towards the medicines and was to get transfer foregoing the transfer allowance of Rs.60,000/-. All these happened because of negligence and deficiency in service rendered by Opposite parties No.1 & 2. He is entitled to get the compensation as prayed for.

 

          4. The Opposite party No.1 has filed the version denying the correctness of allegations made against the hospital, contending that the Complainant approached on 27.08.2005 with a history of chest pain and burning sensation from previous two weeks and underwent CABG surgery on 31.08.2005 which became uneventful. The allegations made about the infections are false. The Opposite party No.2 doctor has left the hospital long back. As per the standard operating procedures and protocols of the hospital for operation theatre (OT) cleaning and the maintenance of sterility, carbolization of the operating room is done daily at the end of the day. Also regular scrubbing and carbolization of the OT and fumigation is done on weekends and swabs are taken for culture and the microbiology reports are recorded in the OT culture report book (FF-OPT-005). There has been no deviation in following the protocols of cleaning of the OT. The patient has been treated with due diligence and accordance to the established medical standards as supported by his entire file consisting of Ex-B1 to Ex-B21 treatment records and there has been no negligence whatsoever on their part as alleged.  Legal notice of the Complainant was properly replied on 29.08.2007 informing the Complainant to send copies of the all medical records to submit appropriate reply and the same was not complied by the Complainant. The hospital is not liable to pay any damages.

 

          5. The Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence relying on Ex-A1 to Ex-A14 documents.  Dr.Mohan N Reddy and Dr.Wasunkar filed their affidavit evidences relying on Ex-B1 to Ex-B22 treatment sheets maintained in the hospital file relating to the treatment of the Complainant. The referred documents of the Complainant are available in the said hospital file. Written arguments were filed by both the parties. Arguments were heard.

 

          6. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

  1. Whether there are grounds in condone the delay in filing this complaint ?
  2. Whether the Complainant establishes that he was infected because of the negligence in the Opposite party No.1/hospital regarding cleanliness and by Opposite party No.2 Doctor, when he underwent CABG surgery on 31.08.2005 which made him to undergo further surgery/treatment at different hospitals as alleged ?
  3. To what order the parties are entitled ?

 

7. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Affirmative

2) Negative

3) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

 

          8. Consumer Dispute No.1: The Complainant has filed application u/s 5 seeking condonation of delay in filing this complaint relying on the observation made in W.P.18058 of 2007 dated 14.06.2011. The complainant had earlier filed CC.49/2007 before Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission claiming compensation exceeding Rs. 36,00,000/-  and when it came to be dismissed on the ground of “excessive Compensation” he filed W.P.18058 of 2007 and filed withdrawal memo dated14-06-2011. The Hon’ble High Court permitted him on 14.06.2011 to withdraw the W.P. with liberty to seek alternative remedy and to seek condonation of delay about the pendency of W.P. Thereafter this complaint is filed on10-08-2011. Operations conducted in 2005 and 2006 are subject matter of CC.49/2007 and exclusion of W.P period is to be considered because of his efforts continued and hence this complainant also have to be considered as filed with cogent explanations to condone the delay of limitation period.  Accordingly the Consumer Dispute No.1 answered in the affirmative.

 

          9. Consumer Dispute No.2:. The Complainant/the officer of Canara bank, approached the opposite party 1/Hospital on 27.08.2005 as per Ex B1/form, with an history of chest pain and burning sensation from previous two weeks. He was advised by Dr.A.Gopi/interventional cardiologist and later he underwent CABG surgery on 31.08.2005 conducted by Opposite Party No.2/Dr.Sadruddin Sharif, as supported by Ex-A1/Ex-B2 discharge summary dated 7-9-2005. As inpatient he underwent several health /diagnose/ investigation processes mentioned in Ex B4 to ExB21 including treatment and nurses records Ex-B12.   

 

10. The complainant was later diagnosed as infected from Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Scanty Growth) in ExA-3 dated18-9-2005. In this connection he had been under the care of Dr.A.Gopi in between 12-9-2005 to 20-9-2005 in Opposite party no.1 Hospital as per Ex-A2. As outpatient also he had consulted Dr.Gopi and was subjected complete blood count as shown in bill 10-09-2005 annexed with Ex-A4 and for suturing of wound.

 

11. The complainant has alleged that it was due to lack of cleanliness in the hospital when he stayed till 07.09.2005 and because of negligence and deficiency in service rendered by Opposite party No.2, he was again treated till 20.09.2005 at the cost of Rs.68,861.68 as shown in Ex-A2 Bill, lab report Ex-A3/A7and medical bill Ex-A4 of September 2005, and the continued infection made him to stay in his brother’s house which is 15 k.m. away to get the advice from Opposite party No.2 by visiting private clinic for dressing and treatment which continued till 03.11.2005.

 

12. The complainant has further alleged that continued infection made him to take treatment repeatedly at several hospitals namely at Wockhardt Hospital, as per Ex-A5 and A6 Reports and bills at the cost of Rs.27,000/- for the removal of steel wire inserted during CABG surgery and got discharged on 09.11.2005, at Omni Hospital at Chandigarh  on 19.12.2005 at the cost of Rs.57,219/- as per Ex-A8 to A10,  was constrained to undergo treatment in (October) 5.10.2006, at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital at the cost of Rs.1,53,000/- as supported by records Ex-A11, and on 06.06.2006 at Wockhardt Hospital got removed the infected bones, at the cost of Rs.27,000/-.  Then he realized that the said infection lead to staphylococcus Aureus which made him to suffer for his life time.

 

13. The complainant has contended that he had high fever and chills after operation of 31-8-2005 and hence was re-admitted to the hospital where several investigations for the pus of operated wound revealed that the said infection was due to lack of cleanliness in the hospital.

 

14. The complainant has contended further that the operation theatre was found closed during the last week of September 2005 and the defence of Opposite party that closure was routine and as per the standards prescribed by the authorities, is not substantiated by even single piece of paper, and it supports his case. Non production of case papers with regards to the treatment given to him after infection was diagnosed have to be seriously to be noted by the forum as observed in the 2010 STPL, (web) 886, and expert opinion is not necessary in this case as the circumstances itself speak (Res ipsa loquitor) as observed in 2010 STPL, (web) 333 paras 44-45. He has furnished Article copy of ‘Understanding MRSA infection- the basics” wherein it is also observed as here under:

 

What is MRSA ? The symptoms of MRSA depend on where you are infected. Most often, it causes mild infections on the skin, like sores or boils. But it can also cause more serious skin infections or infect surgical wounds, the bloodstream, the lungs, or the urinary tract.

 

Who gets MRSA ? MRSA is spread by contact. So, you could get MRSA by touching another person who has it on the skin. Or you could get it by touching objects that have the bacteria on them. MRSA is carried by about 1% of the population, although most of them aren’t infected.

 

MRSA infections are common among people who have weak immune systems and are in hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care centers. Infections can appear around surgical wounds or invasive devices, like catheters or implanted feeding tubes. Rates of infection in hospitals, especially intensive care units, are rising throughout the world. In U.S. hospitals, MRSA causes more than 60% of staph infections.

 

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: MRSA is especially troublesome in hospitals and nursing homes, where patients with open wounds, invasive devices, and weakened immune systems are at greater risk of infection than the general public.

 

Risk factors: Some of the populations at risk: People staying or working in a health care facility for an extended period of time

 

Hospital Patients: Many MRSA infections occur in hospitals and healthcare facilities, with a higher incidence rate in nursing homes or long-term care facilities. When infections occur in this manner it is known as healthcare acquired MRSA or HA-MRSA. These Rates of MRSA infection are also increased in hospitalized patients who are treated with quinolones. Healthcare provider-to-patient transfer is common, especially when healthcare providers move from patient to patient without performing necessary hand-washing techniques between patients.

 

Prevention: Probiotic prophylaxis may prevent colonization and delay onset of pseudomonas infection in an ICU setting. Immunoprophylaxis against pseudomonas is being investigated.  

 

Diagnosis: Diagnosis of P.aeruginosa infection depends upon isolation and laboratory identification of the bacterium. It grows well on most laboratory media and commonly is isolated on blood agar or eosinmethylthionine blue agar. It is identified on the basis of its Gram morphology, inability to ferment lactose, a positive oxidase reaction, its fruity odor, and its ability to grow at 420C. Fluorescence under ultraviolet light is helpful in early identification of P.s aeruginosa colonies. Fluorescence is also used to suggest the presence of P.aeroginosa in wounds.

  

          15. The Opposite parties are also relied on the “Merck Manual of Medical information”-second home edition-The world’s most widely used medical reference for the twenty-first century wherein it is observed under the head:

Pseudomonas Infections: Pseudomonas is present throughout the world in soil, water, and on the skin of animals and people.

 

Pseudomonas can cause minor skin infection or serious, life-threatening illness. The most serious infections from Pseudomonas develop in debilitated and hospitalized people, particularly those with a weakened immune system. People with diabetes are particularly prone to Pseudomonas infections. Pseudomonas can infect the blood, skin, bones, ears, eyes, urinary tract, heart valves, and lungs.

 

Symptoms and Diagnosis: Rarely, Pseudomonas infects heart valves. People who have received an artificial heart valve are more vulnerable; however, natural heart valves can be infected, especially in injecting drug users.

Doctors diagnose Pseudomonas infections by growing the bacteria in cultures of blood or other body fluids.

 

Prevention and Treatment: Serious Pseudomonas infections are difficult to treat.

         

16. The Opposite parties have further relied on the same edition wherein at the next page it is observed as here under: under the head:

Staphylococcal Infections: Postoperative staphylococcal infections usually appear a few days to several weeks after surgery but may develop more slowly if the person received antibiotics at the time of surgery.

 

Diagnosis and Treatment: Staphylococcal skin infections are usually diagnosed by their appearance without laboratory testing. Other more serious staphylococcal infections require samples of blood or infected fluids for culture. The laboratory establishes the diagnosis and determines which antibiotics can kill the staphylococci.

17. The Opposite parties strongly contended that the allegations regarding the closure of the operation theater at the last week of September 2005 amounts to hearsay and cannot relied on to connect it with his case. The Opposite parties have contended that as per the standard operating procedures and protocols of the hospital for Operation Theater (OT) cleaning and maintenance of sterility, carbolization of the operating room is done daily at the end of the day. Also regular scrubbing and carbolisation of the OT & fumigation is done on weekends and swabs are taken for culture and the microbiology reports are recorded in the OT culture report book (FF-OPT-005). There has been no deviation in following the protocols of cleaning of the OT.

 

18. The Opposite parties contended that because of the postoperative infection (pseudomonas aeruginosa) the Complainant made reckless allegations by making enquiries on casual form to suit his purpose without further enquiring such routine observations being carried out periodically. The Complainant has failed to follow the advice of the doctor to follow up the dressing of the said infection. As per the standard operating procedures the cleaning and maintenance of sterility carbolisation of OT is done daily basis alongwith regular scrubbing and carbolisation of OT and fumigation is done at weekends and swabs are taken for culture and micro biology reports are recorded in the OT culture report book without there being the deviation of the said protocols. The Complainant has witnessed the fumigation which was in progress and now has been making allegations to damage the hospital reputation and to gain monitory benefits. The Opposite parties further relied on the referred medical manual on contending that the people with diabetes are particularly prone to pseudomonas infection which can infect the blood, skin, bones, ears, eyes, urinary tract, heart valves and lungs and the said infection favours moist areas, such as sinks, toilets, pools and hot tubs and usually can with stand standard levels of pool chlorination. The bacteria have even been known to live in antibiotic solutions and such being the case by making allegations only the said infection cannot be attributed to the Opposite parties hospital, particularly in view of daily infection control measures taken by the staff in the hospital without producing any expert medical evidence.

 

19. The Opposite parties further contend that in the absence of the expert evidence, the forum should not attribute the negligence against the Opposite parties [IV (2006) CPJ 45], the accepted practice and procedures when being adopted by maintaining all types of protocol duties no negligence has to be attributed [II (2008) CPJ 337], the complicated operation followed by negligently stitching of wounds and post operational care shall be levelled through expert’s evidence and not on the basis of mere allegations to attribute the medical negligence against the hospital [II (2002) CPJ 67], no medical doctor of any other hospital which treated the patient stated that the operation dated 31.08.05 and treatments thereon were wrong and thereby in the absence of such medical evidence by expert’s to prove the degree of alleged deficiency in the skill and knowledge [III (2000) CPJ 283]

 

20. The Opposite parties have relied on the observations made in the following decisions:

I (2004) CPJ 123 (Uttaranchal): Every operation is not a case of negligence. Failure of operation is also not a case of negligence. Side effects are also possible. Happening of side effects is also not negligence. The term “negligence” is defined to mean absence of lack and care, which a reasonable man should have taken in the circumstances of the case. Not even a single word has been told in the complaint, nor in the grounds of appeal about what care was desired from the doctor in which he failed. It is not said anywhere that what negligence was done during the course of operation. Nerves may be cut down at the time of operation and mere cutting of nerve doesn’t amount to negligence. It is not said that it has been deliberately done. To the contrary it is also not said that the nerves were cut in the operation and it was not cut at the time of accident. No expert evidence whatsoever has been produced. The mere allegation will not make out a case of negligence, unless it is proved by reliable evidence and is supported by expert evidence. It is true that operation has been done. It is further true that the Complainant has met heavy expenses but unless the negligence of the doctor is proved she is not entitled to any compensation.

 

III (2000) CPJ 283 (WB): It is now a settled principle of law that a medical practitioner will bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor the very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of circumstances in each case is what the law requires. Judged from this yardstick, postoperative infection or shortening of the leg was not due to any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party appellant. Deficiency in service thus cannot be fastened on the Opposite party.

II (2004) CPJ 482: Therefore, the evidence to prove negligence of a doctor must be of a high degree and must be an expert evidence which leads to the conclusion that it was the fault on the part of the doctor which he committed negligently which caused adverse to the patient.

 

II (2004) CPJ 504: It is known fact that the best skill in the worldly things sometime went wrong in medical treatment or surgery operation. A doctor was not to be held negligent simply because something went wrong. A judge can find a doctor guilty only when it is proved that he has fallen short of standard of reasonable medical care.

 

I (2001) CPJ 8: “All medical negligence cases concern various questions of fact, when we say burden of proving negligence lies on the Complainant, it means he has the task of convincing the court that his version of the facts is the correct one”.

 

I (2004) CPJ 79 (NC): “Allegation of medical negligence is a serious issue and it is for the person who sets up the case to prove negligence based on material on record or by way of evidence”. Complaint of medical negligence dismissed as applicant failed to establish and prove any instance of medical negligence.

 

21. The consideration of all the contentions of both the sides is sufficient to show that the alleged postoperative infection is also common among people having less immune, on many occasions and it can be diagnosed upon isolation and laboratory media and it is identified on the basis of its Gram morphology, inability to ferment lactose, a positive oxidase reaction, its fruity order, and its ability to grow at 420C. 

 

22. The complainant was discharged on 7-9-2005 and readmitted after 4-5 days and infection was diagnosed on 18-7-2005. The allegation of infection in the OT was based on oral enquiry by the complainant. There are no explanations about the fate of the operated wound and its follow up action before re admission. There is no cogent evidence to show that the pus of the operated wound revealed that the said infection was due to lack of cleanliness in the hospital. The oral evidence on all these points require the support of medical expert’s evidence. It is stated by the Complainant that there is no need for such evidence in this case. The medical literature throw light on various links to connect with alleged infection. The complainant has not succeeded to exclude other links and to connect with the alleged absence of cleanliness of the hospital. In the result no inference of negligence can be drawn from the above facts and circumstances. The Latin principle Res Ipsa Loquitur cannot be applied to this case.

 

23. The complainant has failed to convince that his version of the facts is the correct one. He has failed to comply his part of duty in placing reliable evidence with the support of expert’s evidence. Medical literatures of both the sides are not sufficient to throw light to adopt version of any of the parties of this complaint. There is no necessity for this consumer forum to constitute itself as an expert body and to contradict the statement or version of both the parties separately.

 

24. Hence the Complainant has failed to establish the Consumer Dispute No.2 with cogent & expert evidence and accordingly it is answered in the negative.

25. Consumer Dispute No.3: In view of the findings of Consumer Disputes No.1 & 2 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 31st day of January 2017).

 

 

      

 

       (SURESH.D)

         MEMBER

         

 

          (ROOPA.N.R)

   MEMBER

 

 

 (VASANTHKUMAR.H.Y)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

Ex-A1

Discharge Summary from Op.1 hospital dtd.07.09.05

Ex-A2

Bill issued by Op.1

Ex-A3

Lab report of Op.1 dtd.18.09.05

Ex-A4

Bills

Ex-A5

Investigation report of Wockhardt hospital dtd 31.10.05

Ex-A6

Operation notes and bills of Wockhardt

Ex-A7

Haematology by hospital Op.1

Ex-A8

Omni hospital, Chandigarh-discharge summary dtd.23.08.05

Ex-A9

ECG

Ex-A10

Omni hospital receipt dtd.09.12.05

Ex-A11

Laboratory reports & bills 

Ex-A12

Prescription of Dr.Sadruddin sharif along with 2 bill receipts

Ex-A13

Letter dtd.10.12.05 by Complainant to his higher officer requesting reimbursement of hospital expenses

Ex-A14

Service bill of Complainant given by Op.1 dtd.09.09.05, 27.08.05 & 07.09.05 Total Rs.2,04,500/-

 

 

 

Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party No.1

 

Ex-B1

Patient registration record

Ex-B2

Discharge summary

Ex-B3

Discharge note

Ex-B4

Consultant progress sheet

Ex-B5

Consultant notes

Ex-B6

Inpatient progress sheet

Ex-B7

Consent for surgery

Ex-B8

Pre operate checklist

Ex-B9

Informed consent for cardio-thoracic operation

Ex-B10

Clinical chart

Ex-B11

Nurses record

Ex-B12

Nurses record medication & treatment records

Ex-B13

Intake & output record

Ex-B14

BP & pulse chart

Ex-B15

CT SICU flow chart

Ex-B16

Intensive treatment unit

Ex-B17

Diet prescription

Ex-B18

Perfusion data sheet

Ex-B19

Post-up patients checklist

Ex-B20

Initial investigations

Ex-B21

Lab reports

Ex-B22

OT register

 

 

      

 

       (SURESH.D)

         MEMBER

         

 

          (ROOPA.N.R)

   MEMBER

 

 

 (VASANTHKUMAR.H.Y)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ex-A9

Bills and treatment

Ex-A10

Summory treatment of Wockhardt hospital on 06.06.06

Ex-A11

M.S.Ramaiah hospital-discharge summary and other documents dtd. 05.10.06 and bills

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. D.SURESH]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. N.R.ROOPA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.