Date of Filing: 16-05-2006
Date of Disposal: 02-07-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member.
Wednesday, the 2nd day of July, 2014
C.C.NO.76/2007
Between:
Smt.M.Saraswathi
W/o Narayanappa
S.C. Colony
Mothukapalli Village
Hindupur Mandal
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
- Dr.T.Nirmala Reddy
W/o T.Ramesh Reddy
Shilpa Nursing Home,
Ananthapuramu District.
- Dr.T.Ramesh Reddy
Father’s name not known,
C/o Shilpa Nursing Home,
Ananthapuramu District.….Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of SriB.Mallikarjuna, advocate for the complainant and Sri G.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC) : - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards permanent disability, pain and suffering and mental agony and Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of earnings.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant was working as coolie and went to Government Hospital, Hindupur during the months of February & March, 2004 for treatment of white-discharge and Dr.T.Ramesh Reddy, who was working as Doctor in the said hospital suggested her for removal of uterus, other-wise there is danger to her life and on his advice she joined in 1st opposite party’s hospital, who is no other than wife of the 2nd opposite party. She was admitted in the hospital on 24-03-2004 and date of procedure was 25-03-2004 and subsequently discharged on 31-03-2004. Both the opposite parties conducted surgery on the complainant on 25-03-2004 and later the complainant’s hands and legs became paralyzed soon after surgery. On enquiry the complainant came to know that she was paralyzed due to negligence of the opposite parties while conducting surgery on the complainant and both the opposite parties expressed their inability to set-right paralyses to the hands and legs of the complainant.
3. Later the complainant was taken to NIMHANS, Bangalore and she took treatment there for about 6 months. Inspite of expert’s treatment at NIMHANS, Bangalore, there was no much improvement in her health condition and she became permanently disabled and she was confined to bed. The complainant has spent around Rs.80,000/-for her treatment and inspite of spending huge amount, the complainant could not recover and this happened due to the negligence of the opposite parties. The attitude of these opposite parties is that they have given a false certificate stating that the complainant has undergone sterilization operation though she was advised to be admitted in the hospital for removal of uterus. Hence the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties claiming compensation towards permanent disability and expenses incurred for treatment and also towards loss of earnings. The same was decided by this Forum vide orders dt.26-12-2008 in which the complaint was dismissed without costs as the complainant has failed to prove her case. Aggrieved by the orders of this Forum, the complainant has filed an appeal in F.A.No.171/2009 before the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad.
4. The Hon’ble A.P.State Commission remanded the matter vide its orders dt.20-12-2011 in which the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to this Forum by directing this Forum to freshly dispose of the complaint by giving an opportunity to both the complainant and opposite parties to prove their contentions and also directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible.
5. After remanding the matter by the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, notices were served on both the complainant and opposite parties on 26-06-2012. Again another notice was issued to the complainant on 08-02-2013 as the complainant did not appear before this Forum for the first notice. The same was served on the complainant and the complainant appeared in person on 15-02-2013 and requested to give time to engage an advocate. Subsequently the complainant engaged an advocate and has taken number of adjournments to file further evidence.
6. The complaint was remanded to decide basing on the further evidence provided by both sides. But the complainant has not filed any new documents and only filed the same documents, which were filed at the first instance i.e. discharge summary, which is marked as Ex.A1 and the Discharge Summary of NIMHANS, Bangalore and the Discharge Summary of Shilpa Nursing Home. No new documents have been filed by the complainant to prove her case. Further the complainant was not present personally in order to assess her condition inspite of giving number of opportunities to her. Further the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission has directed the complainant to file typed copies of the said discharge summaries and so also originals if any and to call for the above said surgical and anesthesia notes etc., to analyze the matter in an efficient manner and come to conclusion to pass appropriate orders, but the complainant has miserably failed to furnish the above said documents inspite of giving number of opportunities. This shows that the complainant has no interest to prosecute the opposite parties.
7. In the above circumstances, as the complainant has not filed any new documents in order to prove her case inspite of giving number of adjournments, hence we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove her case by not filing any additional documents to prove that it is only due to the negligence of the opposite parties that her both limbs were paralyzed. As the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case though the matter was remanded by the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission to decide the case afresh only by considering further evidence from both the parties. In the above circumstances, it is very difficult to come to a conclusion that the complainant’s limbs were paralyzed only due to the negligence of the opposite parties 1 & 2. Hence, we are of the view that as the complainant has failed to prove her case and nothing new has been established, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 2nd day of July, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
PW1 – Dr.Virendra Kumar, Professor DN
Unit NIMHANS, Bangalore on
02-06-2008 -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Photo copy of Discharge Summary Card.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed JPNN
