BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.567 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.367 OF 1996 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM KHAMMAM

Between
Dr.M.Aparna
Private Medical Practitioner
Gynaecologist & Obstetrician
Aparna Hospital, M.G.Road,
Kothagudem-507 101
Khammam District                                                                                            

Smt Ghousia Begum
being physically & mentally crippled

Rep. by her husband Md.Rahim Khan
Yellandu, Khammam District

Respondent/ opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant           

Counsel for the Respondents

QUORUM:    

&

             The respondent stated to have been incapacitated and has become totally dependent on others.   

The respondent is not able to attend any work through out her life.    

The respondent stated to have examined physical condition of the respondent after going through the reports. 

1)         Whether the appellant has obtained consent for treatment as also operation on the respondent?

2)         Whether the appellant has committed deficiency in service in treating the respondent?

3)         To what relief?

POINTS NO1 & 2        

In support of her contention the appellant has not placed any evidence to show that she had obtained the consent of the respondent and her husband for performing the surgery on the respondent as also the consent said to have been obtained by the appellant and handed over the same to the doctors at NIMS.     

The appellant has issued reply under Ex.A2 which has no mention of any fact relating to the alleged handing over of the consent by the appellant to the NIMS. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in        

The Supreme Court summarized the principles relating to ‘consent’ as follows :

(i)      

(ii)               

(iii)       

patient from pain and suffering in future, are not grounds of defence in an action in tort for negligence or assault and battery.  

(iv)         

(v)          

The appellant has performed hysterectomy on the respondent and a day prior to the operation the respondent was admitted to the hospital of the appellant.   

The appellant has got conducted in her hospital, the serum electrolytes on 15.4.1995, blood sugar, blood urea on 10.4.1995, blood group on 10.4.1995, random sugar level on 12.4.1995.           

The version of the appellant is that after conducting the required tests, the respondent requested for one week time to set her home affairs in order.     

The appellant has not stated at what time the cardiac arrest occurred during the course of operation.   

POINT NO.3:        

In the result the appeal is dismissed. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            KMK*