National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Agarulakshmi Rajyam vs K. Sudhakara Rao (Dr.) on 21 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: II(2007)CPJ240(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. The case of the complainant is that the revision petitioner Agarulakshmi Rajyam was the complainant before the District Forum. She went to the respondent Dr. Sudhakar Rao for treatment of her eye on 15.11.1994 who examined her eye and prescribed certain medicines. Though she took the medicine according to his advice her eyesight was deteriorating slowly. Hence, she approached again on 16.12.1994 when he prescribed medicines and spectacles. There was no improvement and she suffered severe headacheort several occasions. Asher condition deteriorated she went to Modern Eye Hospital, Nellore on 5.7.1995 and consulted two doctors there. They advised her to proceed to Madras or Bangalore for better treatment.
2. The petitioner visited National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore (NIMHANS) on 19.7.1995 where she underwent Pituitary Adenoma operation. Her case is that she lost her eyesight totally in the left eye and partly in the right eye due to negligence and deficiency in the service of the respondent Dr. Sudhakar Rao for which she claimed compensation. The respondent doctor filed a counter stating that he was a qualified eye specialist in Ayurvedam having studied 4 1/2 years course in S.R. Government Ayurvedic College and had obtained a bachelor degree in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery from the Directorate of Indian Medicines and Homoeopathy, Government of Andhra Pradesh and also undergone House Physiciancy Training at Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Hyderabad. The Andhra Board for Ayurveda issued a certificate to practise on 10.4.74. Further he worked under Dr. S. Koteswara Rao, Assistant Professor, Ophthalmology, Government Hospital, Guntur. When the complainant was examined on 16.11.1994 he found 0.25 error in her eyes and complainant went away without taking medicines and glasses. She came back a month later and in order to rectify the refractive error and headache he prescribed glasses and tablets for 15 days. When she came to him again on 20.2.1995 he advised her to consult a Neurologist and in the meantime gave her medicines to strengthen the nervous system. Her treatment at NIMHANS indicated that there was a tumour in the brain at pituitary gland which had affected the optic nervous system. In fact she went to the NIMHANS about five months after his advice. The District Forum after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant approached by filing appeal to the State Commission which held that:
The complainant did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary to show that after taking the medicines prescribed by the respondent (opposite party) whether there was any improvement or that the treatment resulted in loss of her eyesight. The complainant did not discharge her burden of proof. On the other hand the respondent (opposite party) filed Exs. B-1 to B-7 to show that the complainant lost the vision on account of development of tumour and not on account of treatment given by the respondent (opposite party). There is no proof that the complainant was regular in taking treatment given by the respondent. In the absence of any evidence in support of the allegation the complaint, we are unable to accept the claim of the complainant that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The District Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint, The order of the District Forum does not warrant our interference.
Findings:
4. We have perused the records of the case, Dr. Sudhakar Rao has undertaken 4 1/2 years degree course in S.R. Government Ayurvedic College, Guntur and passed the final examination in the month of August 1973 with the following subjects:
1. NIDANAM.
2. KAYACHIKITSA.
3. PRASUTI TANTRA STRIROGA AND BALAROGA.
4. SALYA SALAKYA.
5. AGADA TANTRA AND VYAVAHARA AYURVEDA.
Dr. T. Krishna Rao has given an affidavit of P.H.C. Jaladanki on 24.8.1998. He has analysed medicines given by Dr. Sudhakar Rao in the following words The tablet Celgle Plus gives relief for headache and pains. The capsule Cobadex Fort is Vitamin B-Complex. The capsule Metaple-Z is B-Complex and Zink. The Capsule Neurotrat is Vitamin-B Complex. The liquid Vecophos is an Iron Tonic and the capsule Aquasel A is Vitamin A. The above mentioned drugs are common drugs. They do not have the nature of side effects to the body. They do not cause Brain Tumour i.e. Pituitary Adenoma or Blindness is any way. I hereby declare that the above facts are true to the best of my knowledge again and belief.
5. She was admitted to NIMHANS in the Department of Neurosurgery on 19.7.1995 and was discharged on 7.8.1995. She was diagnosed for Gaini Pituitary Adenoma. The history indicated "Patient had presented with secondary ammenorrhoa 3 years progressive visual deterioration 4 months. On 26,7.1995 she underwent biocoronal craniotomy subfrontal approach and subtotal removal of pituitary adenoma was done,
6. There ii nothing to prove to show that there was deficiency in the treatment given by the respondent-doctor and that treatment had caused tumour in the brain and loss of vision. The complainant has also not filed any expert medical evidence or medical text to prove the alleged negligence by the respondent. Accordingly, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed as such. There shall be no order as to costs.