State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
B.Kasi Reddy,Kurnool District. vs Dr.T.Viswarupachari,Kurnool ... on 29 January, 2014
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.364 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.17 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM, KURNOOL. Between: Between: B.Kasi Reddy, S/o Chowda Reddy, H.No.25/269, Sanjeeva Nagar, Nandyal 518 501, Kurnool District. ..Appellant/ Complainant And Dr.T.Viswarupachari, C/o Sri Veerabramhendra Nursing Home, D.No.25/157, Sanjeeva Nagar, Nandyal 518 501, Kurnool District. Respondent/ oPP.PARTY. For the Appellant Mr B.Kasi Reddy, Party in person Counsel for the Respondent: M/s M.Ramgopal Reddy QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER.
AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN Order (As per Sri T.ASHOK KUMAR Honble MEMBER) *** This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order in C.C.No.17/2012 dated 08-4-2013 on the file of District Forum, Kurnool. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder:
The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is that he met with an accident on 09-08-20009 and sustained injury to his right leg elbow and to his right knee. He took treatment for five days at Government Hospital, Nandyal but could not recover and joined in opposite party nursing home as inpatient on 14-08-2009 and was treated upto 18-8-2009 and he paid Rs.12,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that instead of getting cured, he developed further complications and the opposite party was very negligent in treating the complainant and due to his negligence the wound formed gangrene and his blood urea increased abnormally to 72-80 points and it became serious and puss was formed around. Inspite of several requests, opposite party doctor did not give clear idea about the condition of the injury and expressed his inability to treat him as his condition was serious. The complainant got himself discharged on 18-08-2009 and approached Dr.V.V.Raghava Reddy, Orthopedic Doctor who after thorough examination referred the complainant to NIMS Critical Care Unit. The complainant was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bangalore for treatment and was treated there from 20-08-2009 to 06-10-2009. He incurred Rs.1,00,000/- towards his treatment and he is a daily labour, forced to borrow huge amount at higher rate of interest and suffered physically and mentally and lost mental balance due to the negligence of opposite party. He also had treatment from Dr.A.Vijayachandra Reddy, Asst.Professor, Kurnool Medical College for psychiatric problem by spending huge amounts. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 08-08-2011 demanding compensation from opposite party for which the opposite party gave a reply with all false and baseless allegations. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation with 18% per annum interest; Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Opposite party filed written version resisting the complaint and denied that the complainant could not recover and he collected Rs.12,000/- from the complainant. He was not negligent in treating the complainant, and no complications developed during the treatment in his Hospital. Opposite party further contended that no gangrene was formed, no pus formed and the condition of the complainant was never serious. Increase in level of blood urea is common in case of infection of wounds of road traffic accidents. The allegation that he did not give clear idea about the condition of the complainant is false. The complainant with an intention to go to higher institutes for treatment got himself discharged. The said fact is also noted in the case sheet of Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bangalore. He also expressed that he was happy with the treatment in A.P.as per the case sheet. In fact the complainants injury got infected during the days of treatment in Government Hospital, Nandyal. He gave treatment with utmost care. The parameters noted in the case sheet of opposite parties Hospital are all normal, indicating that the treatment is good. The referral letter of Dr.V.V.Raghava Reddy does not speak of the treatment given in opposite parties Hospital. The findings of Cellulitis and Necrotizing Fascitis in the case sheet of Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Bangalore are not seen on the admission day i.e., even after two days from the date of Dr.V.V.Raghava Reddys letter. Doctors of Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bangalore diagnosed the wound as post traumatic exposure of skin and soft tissue loss with exposed patella. Under the circumstances explained above opposite party prayed that there is no deficiency of service on his part and the case against him may be dismissed with costs.
Both sides filed affidavits reiterating their respective contentions and the complainant got marked Exs.A1 to A10 on his behalf. Having heard both sides, considering the material on record and written arguments of both sides, the District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the complaint.
Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum had wrongly come to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove the negligence on the part of the opposite party during the period of his treatment even though he proved the negligence by producing substantial documentary and oral evidence.
Both the parties filed written arguments.
Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts?
As per Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint alleging medical negligence has to be filed before the District Forum within two years from the date on which cause of action arose. However, the District Forum has power to condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. In this case there is no such delay condonation petition. According to the complainant, he met with an accident on 09-8-2009 and sustained injury to his right knee and he took treatment in Government hospital, Nandyal for 5 or 6 days but could not recover and therefore joined in the opposite party hospital on 14-8-2009. He was discharged from the opposite party hospital on 18-8-2009 and thereafter he approached Dr.V.V.Raghava Reddy on 18-8-2009 and he referred the complainant to NIMS whereas the complainant got himself admitted in Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Bangalore on 20-8-2009 and took treatment till 06-10-2009. Even though the complainant tried to establish with Exs.A5 and A6 outpatient slips, dated 06-8-2011 and 20-8-2011 that cause of action continues, he failed to do so. In Ex.A5 nothing is mentioned connecting the complainant to the alleged injury received in road accident and it is an outpatient slip of Government General Hospital, Kurnool pertaining to Psychiatrist. Therefore the said document is not helpful to the complainant to state that the cause of action continues till that date for filing the complaint. In Ex.A6, the name of one Dasu Reddy was mentioned and it contains some prescriptions and reports unconnected to the said injury to right knee and it was also issued by Physiatrist, therefore the said document is not relevant for the case of the complainant. Taking into consideration the date 06-10-2009, on which the complainant was discharged from Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Bangalore, the complaint ought to have been filed on 06-10-2011 but it was filed on 02-2-2012 and thus we are satisfied that the complaint is barred by limitation. Even though it is alleged that the complainant received such an injury to his right knee in road accident, documents such as copy of FIR, scene of offence panchanama or document evidencing treatment from Government hospital Nandyal are not filed by the complainant so as to believe that he received such injury on 09-8-2009 and took treatment in the Government hospital, Nandyal before he was admitted into the hospital of opposite party.
Ex.A1 reveals that the opposite party had done wound debridement and dressing and some medicines were also prescribed. The opposite party also mentioned in it that the patient recovered slowly. According to the opposite party, Ex.A3 case sheet of the complainant maintained at the hospital of the opposite party also reveals the details of the treatment given to the complainant from 14-8-2009 10-00 p.m. to 18-8-2009, which disclose that the treatment given is for a period of 4 and half days and is also as per normal standards. The complainant on the other hand has not chosen to file the affidavit of Dr.Raghava Reddy or any other expert where he underwent treatment later that the treatment at opposite party was not as per normal medical parlance. In Ex.A2 Dr.Raghava Reddy suspected septicemia but we are not having any record or evidence to prove as to when the complainant sustained the injury and for how many days he was treated and the treatment given at Government hospital, Nandyal and in such circumstances, we cannot throw the blame on the treatment given by opposite party hospital. According to Ex.A4 and A10, the doctors at Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Bangalore diagnosed post traumatic exposure of skin and soft tissue loss with exposed patella and the wound was cleaned and dressed and after admission, Cellulitis was noticed and the said doctors also adopted the similar line of treatment i.e. dressing and debridement was done by opposite party doctor and they covered exposed patella by superiorly based perforated flap and skin graft. When there is a grave wound, increase of blood urea fluctuation of BP, pulse rate etc. is common as contended by the opposite party. In such circumstances the literature filed by the complainant pertaining to Septicemia and blood urea etc., are not relevant and we see no reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Jm sd/-MEMBER.
Dt.29-1-2014.