Telangana

Warangal

CC/177/2013

G.SUDHAKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJATA DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, - Opp.Party(s)

L.JALANDHAR REDDY

08 May 2015

ORDER

 

   BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: WARANGAL

   Present:  Sri P.Praveen Kumar, B.Com., LL.B.,Member-cum-FAC President.

                                       And

                                      Smt.S.B.Bhargavi, B.A., LL.M.,Member.

                                 Friday, the 08^th day of May, 2015.                    

                              CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.177/2013

Date of filing: 19-11-2013

 Date of Disposal: 08-05-2015

Between:

Ginnarapu Sudhakar, S/o.Ilaiah,

 Aged:42 years, Occu:Lab Technician,

R/o.H.No.15-2-118, Rangampet,

 Opp:KMC,  Warangal Dist.                                                                                                                                                                                     … Complainant

          AND

Vijaya Diagnostic Centre, Warangal -II,

Islamia Complex, Opp: MGM Hospital,

 Warangal District.

                                                                                               …Opposite party.

 

 

This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 28-04-2015,  in the presence of Sri L.Jalandhar Reddy Advocate for the complainant  and  Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, Advocate for Opposite Party and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                           CC 177/2013                                      

                                                                                                                              ORDER

Per Smt. S.B.Bhargavi, Lady Member

1.       The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.3,00,000/-towards damages for pain and suffering to the complainant with interest @9% p.a.  from the date of complaint till realization.

 

 2.      The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant on                  23-09-2013 went to Kothapet Village to Rangampet Village on his bike and at about 8.00 PM he reached Kothapet ‘X’ -roads, due to focus of lights of opposite vehicles, the complainant unable to control his vehicle and fell down on road, due to which he sustained injuries and became unconscious.   The neighbours called the 108 Ambulance and was shifted to Mourya Hospital where Dr.Laxminarayana advised to take X-Ray of chest.  Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party and paid Rs.500/- for X-Ray reports and the opposite party gave X-Ray report as normal.  Basing on the said report, the said Dr.Laxminarayana gave normal treatment.  But even then he could not get relief from the pain and it had been increased.   Thereby the complainant went to MGM Hospital on  04-10-2013 and on check up he was admitted in the said hospital and the Doctors referred the complainant for   X-Ray.  Medall diagnostics had drawn CT Chest and given report, which clearly showed the fracture of right 4^th -7^th  ribs and basing on the said report, the MGM Doctors gave treatment for fracture of rib bones and discharged on 07-10-2013.  Thereafter, the injuries cured,  the opposite party has given the report carelessly and negligently due to which the complainant sufferred irreparable  loss.  Hence, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the opposite party.  The acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, filed this complaint.

3.      The Opposite Party filed the Written Version stating that it is true the complainant had approached opposite party’s diagnostics centre at Warangal on   24-09-2011 for X-ray Chest (PA VIEW) and DORSAL SPINE LATERAL and accordingly reported the observations that were made at the time of taking X-ray only.  The doctors of MGM Hospital suggested for CT scan and not another X-ray as they were aware that futher X-ray will not be helpful to diagnose the exact condition.  The CT Chest plain was performed after 10 days of the X-ray taken by the oppsite party and reported the observations that were made at the time of taking x-ray.  By that time the fracture was not clear in the X-ray woud have developed due to strain of the patient for which the opposite party cannot be found fault with.  CT chest report is not comparable with X-ray chest for anydisorder and more specifically for the rib cage/lung parenchyma.  The opposite party has not reported that the ribs were normal. 

4.       Further stated that X-ray has got less sensitivity and specificity as compared to the C.T. chest.  X-ray chest has been performed on 24-09-2013 where as CT scan was performed on 04-10-2013 with the possibiity of dynamic change in appreciation of findings.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.       The Parties filed their respective proof Affidavits.  While the Complainant marked Exs.A-1 to A-11 and the Opposite Party not marked any documents.

6.       Now the points for consideration are:

1)    Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite                      Party?

2)    Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for.  If so,           to what Relief?

7.      Point NO.1

          The main contention of the complainant is that the complainant on                  23-09-2013 went to Kothapet Village to Rangampet Village on his bike and at about 8.00 PM he reached Kothapet ‘X’ -roads, due to focus of lights of opposite vehicles, the complainant unable to control his vehicle and fell down on road, due to which he sustained injuries and became unconscious.   The neighbours called the 108 Ambulance and was shifted to Mourya Hospital where Dr.Laxminarayana advised to take X-Ray of chest.  Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party and paid Rs.500/- for X-Ray reports and the opposite party gave X-Ray report as “Normal”.  Basing on the said report, the said Dr.Laxminarayana gave normal treatment.  But even then he could not get relief from the pain and it had been increased.   Thereby the complainant went to MGM Hospital on  04-10-2013 and on check up he was admitted in the said hospital and the Doctors referred the complainant for   X-Ray.  Medall diagnostics had drawn CT Chest and given report, which clearly showed the fracture of right 4^th -7^th  ribs and basing on the said report, the MGM Doctors gave treatment for fracture of rib bones and discharged on 07-10-2013.

8.      On the other hand the opposite party contends conducted the X-ray and report was given on the basis of the observations made at the time of conducting the X-ray only and suggesting clinical correlation.  The CT Chest Plain was taken after 10 days of taking X-ray and report given by the opposite party.

9.       It is an admitted fact that complainant met with a road accident on           23-09-2013 and sustained injuries,  the complainant shifted to Dr.Laxminarayana, Orthopedic Hospital, where the doctor suggested him to get the X-Ray Report of Chest (PA VIEW) and DORSAL SPINE LATERAL.  Thereby he approached the Diagnostic Center and paid an amount of Rs.500/- for the said X-Ray Report, for which the Opposite party gave report as “Normal”.  Basing on that report Dr.Laxminarayana, Orthopedic treated accordingly.  Even then the said complainant could not get any relief from the pain.  Thereby on 04-10-2013 the complainant went to M.G.M. and admitted on the same day, then the doctors of M.G.M. suggested him for CT scan Chest.  In the said report it was shown that there were fractures of the right  4^th to 6^th ribs, basing on the said report the doctors of M.G.M.treated the complainant and discharged on 04-07-2013.   

10.     The facts disputed by the opposite party are that the opposite party had conducted the X-ray and report was given on the basis of the observations made at the time of conducting the X-ray only and suggesting clinical correlation.  The CT Chest Plain was taken after 10 days of taking X-ray and report given by the opposite party.  Alleged  CT scan report and the observations that were made at the time of CT scan by another doctor cannot be compared with X-ray and report that were made 10 days back.

 

11.     After perusing the material on record Ex.A-1 is the legal notice.  Ex.A-8 and A-9 are the reports of (PA VIEW) and DORSAL SPINE LATERAL VIEW wherein the impression of Radiologist was stated as  “Normal Study”.  Ex.A-7 is the prescription of Dr.Laxminarayana, Orthopedi Surgeon basing on Ex.A-8 and A-9 gvien treatment acordingly.  Ex.A-10 is the report of Chest Plain wherein it reveals in obseravations column “Fracture right 4^th -7^th ribs”.  Basing on Ex.A-10 Dr.Suresh of M.G.M.Hospital treated the complainant under Ex.A-6. 

 

12.     The contention of the complainant that there is a deficieincy of service on the part of the opposite party will not give much waitage,  Since on 24-09-2013 the complainant has taken X-ray which is (PA VIEW) and DORSAL SPINE LATERAL only, accordingly the observations were made.  On 04-02-2013 upon reference of another doctor of M.G.M.Hospital Warangal the complainant gone for CT Scan of Chest.  Wherein the said fractures were traced out.  There is every possibiity of developing the pain by the patient within 10 days.  Moreoever taking X-ray is different from CT Scan since CT Scan is higher resolution of X-ray.  Some of the observations which are not visible in X-ray can be tracted out in CT scan.  Nodoubt the patient suffered pain a lot for which the opposite party cannot be made liable.  By this we can say that deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party by the complainant is not proved. 

13.     For the foregoing reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that there is   no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, hence we hold under this point. 

14.    Point NO.2: To What Relief:- As we held that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as stated supra, we decided this point in favour of opposite party against the complainant. 

15.     In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

 

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 08^th day of May,  2015).

 

Lady Member             FAC President District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

     APPENDIX OF EVIDENCEON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT.

On behalf of Complainant                        On behalf of Opposite Party

Affidavit of complainant filed.                       Affidavit of Opposite Party filed.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

1. Ex A-1 is the office copy of legal notice issued to the opposite party dated 22-10-2013.

2. Ex.A-2 is the Postal Receipt.

3. Ex.A-3 is the Acknowledgment

4. Ex.A-4 is X-Ray bill issued by Vijaya Diagnostics Centre.

5. Ex.A-5 is the cash bill issued by Mourya Medical and General Stores, Warangal.

6. Ex.A-6 is the Report issued by M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal.

7. Ex.A-7 is the Prescription issued by Dr.S.Laxminarayana, Orthopedic Surgeon.

8. Ex.A-8 is the X-Ray Chest (P.A.View)

9. Ex.A-9 is the X-Ray Dorsal Spine Lateral View

10. Ex.A-10 is the CT Chest Plain.

11. Ex.A-11 is the X-Ray film issued by Vijaya Diagnostics Centre, Warangal.

ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY

NIL

 

 

                                                                                   Lady Member   FAC President                                                

                                                                             District Consumer Forum, Warangal.