State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.M.Prasad Reddy, Ms (Gen.) Kadapa vs M.Narayanaswamy Kadapa on 3 March, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.305/2006 against CD.No.38/2002 District Consumer Forum, Cuddapah. Between: Dr.M.Prasad Reddy, MS (Gen.) Prasad Nursing Home, Gandhi Road, Proddutur, Kadapa Dist. Appellant/Opp.Party. And M.Narayanaswamy, S/o.Adenna, Chirrajupalli Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa Dist. Respondent/Complainant. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. V.Gourisankara Rao. Counsel for the Respondent : Respondent served. None appeared. QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HONBLE PRESIDENT, AND SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HONBLE MALE MEMBER, TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE. Oral Order (Per Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President) ******* 1.
The opposite party, a medical practitioner, preferred this appeal against the order directing him to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards medical negligence.
2. The case of the complainant in short is that he experienced stomach ache in April, 2001 and on that he went to the appellant, a medical practitioner, and on his advice he underwent ultra-sonography of abdomen, wherein it was found that he was suffering from cholelithiasis. He was advised to undergo operation.
Accordingly, on 10.07.2001, the appellant had conducted surgery. On the 5th post-operative day, the complainant had developed leakage of bile.
Though the appellant had taken steps to control, however, he could not. On that he was referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, where an operation was conducted on 29.07.2001 A stent was inserted and the bile leakage was controlled. He was advised to come up for stent removal after three months. Later, the stent was removed and the bile leakage was completely controlled. He spent nearly Rs.1,00,000/-. All this was due to negligence of the appellant in conducting the operation improperly. Therefore, he claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenses, Rs.3,50,000/- damages, in all Rs.4,50,000/-.
3. The appellant surgeon resisted the case.
While denying the allegations made against him, he admitted that he conducted operation and the patient had developed the leakage of bile. Though he had taken utmost care to see that the bile leakage was controlled, however, it could not be done and on that the patient was referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, where the stent was placed and the leakage was stopped. He was discharged with an advice to come after three months for removal of the stent.
Subsequently, the stent was removed by Dr.S.R.Benerjee Jesudasan, a specialist. There was no negligence on his part. The patient was hale and healthy. The complaint was filed in order to black mail him and gain illegally.
Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs.A.1 to A.3 marked. The appellant filed his affidavit evidence and that of Dr.S.R.Benerjee Jesudasan.
5. The District Forum after considering the evidence of the specialist, who conducted the subsequent operation, however opined that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. Solely on the ground that the appellant did not file case sheet of other patients of similar cases in order to prove his credentials to do such sort of surgery, awarded Rs.13,400/- towards medical expenses and Rs.1,600/- towards lodging and transport charges, in all Rs.15,000/- deposited by the complainant.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the surgeon preferred this appeal contending that when the District Forum found that there was no deficiency in conducting the operation, awarding some amount towards medical expenses, etc. is illegal. Non-production of case sheet of some other patients could not be taken as an adverse inference against him and award compensation.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is an M.S. General Surgeon practicing at Proddutur. It is not the case of the complainant even that the appellant is not a competent surgeon to conduct the operation for removal of gall bladder stones. The grievance is that on 10.07.2001 when the appellant had conducted operation for removal of gall bladder stones, there was a leakage of bile on the 5th post operative day, and on that the appellant tried to control it, but could not manage the bile leakage. Thereupon, he was referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore where R.W.1, Dr.S.R.Benerjee Jesudasan, another specialist inserted stent to control the bile leakage. Later the stent was removed. The complainant became hale and healthy. Now, the complainant attributes deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
8. R.W.1, the doctor who conducted operation at CMC Hospital, Vellore deposed in categorical terms that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant in conducting the surgery on the complainant. We excerpt a passage from his evidence for better appreciation:
In this case there was no surgical negligence.
In this case, as per my assessment the reason for bile leak was due to physiological reasons to the complainant.
The patient was quite all right and normal at the time of admission and there was no danger to his life. In this case a stent was inserted into the bile duct so that the bile leak would stop rapidly. If stent was not inserted even then it would have healed but it would have taken longer period to heal.
In fact the District Forum itself accepted the evidence of R.W.1 and opined that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant while conducting surgery.
As we have pointed out, the only ground on which the District Forum awarded compensation was that the appellant did not file case sheet of some other patients of similar case to show that he was competent to conduct surgery. We do not see how the appellant was incompetent to conduct operations of this nature. In fact P.W.1 underwent surgery, and the same was approved by R.W.1, another expert doctor.
No evidence was filed to prove that appellant had no competency to conduct surgery. The District Forum undoubtedly went wrong in stating that the non- filing of case sheets relating to some other patients could be viewed as negligence. It is not known from where the District Forum could draw such sort of inferences. The complainant having recovered from his ailment and was hale and healthy and was pursuing his avocation, no negligence could be attributed on the part of the appellant. There is no negligence much less medical negligence in treating the complainant. The expert ruled in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the finding of the District Forum can no longer sustain. There are no merits in the complaint.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs.
PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER Dt:03.03.2009.