State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Ch.Raghuram S/O Ch.Appala Swamy, ... vs 1. Kasuladev Anusha And Others on 26 May, 2010
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No. 1594 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.133 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM SRIKAKULAM Between Dr.Ch.Raghuram S/o Ch.Appala Swamy Aged about 32 years, Civil Assistant Surgeon Community Health Centre, Paderu Vishakapatnam Dist. Appellant/opposite partyno.3 A N D 1. Kasuladev Anusha aged about 14 yrs, minor being rep. by father and natural guardian Kasuladev Rama Rao S/o K.Suryanarayana, aged about 48 yrs Occ: Driver, APSRTC, Haripuram Village Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District Respondent/complainant 2. Dr.A.V.Ramakrishna Savitri Nursing Home Main Road, Sompeta-532284 Srikakulam Dist. 3. Dr.Balaga Venkat Rao Medical officer Community Health Centre Sompeta-532284, Srikakulam Dist. Respondents/opposite parties No.1 and 2 Counsel for the Appellant Sri N.Harinath Reddy Counsel for the Respondents No.1 Sri B.Appa Rao Counsel for the Respondents No.2&3 Sri A.Rama Rao QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HONBLE MEMBER
& SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TEN Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) *** The opposite party no.3 is the appellant. The appellant challenges the order of the District Forum directing him to pay the amount of Rs.3 lakh with interest @9 % p.a. from 26.3.2004 together with compensation and costs of Rs.2500/-.
For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint.
The complainant being a minor has filed the complaint through her father, Rama Rao who, on 25-08-2002 took her to the opposite party no.3 for treatment of bulging of her throat. The opposite party no.3 after examining the complainant advised her to under go tonsillectomy and informed the complainants father that he has to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards operation charges. The complainant was admitted on 15.8.2002 for operation in Dutta Sai Nursing Home of opposite party no.3 and on the same day the opposite parties no.2 and 3 performed the operation and after completion of the operation the opposite party no.3 informed the father of the complainant that the complainant requires a major operation for the removal of the tonsils.
On the advice of the opposite party no.3, the father of the complainant admitted the complainant in the nursing home of the opposite party no.1 at Sompeta on 30 .8.2002 and the second operation was conducted on the same day by the opposite parties no.1 to 3.The complainant was discharged after three days of the operation.
After her being discharged from the hospital the complainant developed nervousness, sweating of the body and behavioral change.
The father of the complainant brought the complications to the notice of the opposite party no.3 who after examining her informed that there would be improvement in future and for the time being she has to bear with the present condition. As there was no improvement in the condition of the complainant, her father took her to Dr.V.Manmadha Rao, General Surgeon for treatment who after examining her referred to Seven Hills Hospital for scanning of her throat. After going through the scanning report, Dr.K.A.V.Subramanyam, Asst. Professor, Endocrinologist and Diabetologist informed the father of the complainant that the thyroid gland was removed from the neck of the complainant by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 and that the complainant would suffer stunted growth. The father of the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 20.12.2003 to the opposite parties no.1 to 3 and filed the complaint before the District Forum complaining of negligence of the opposite parties in performing the operation and removing the thyroid gland from the neck of the complainant . The complainant sought for direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.10 lakhs compensation together with interest and costs.
The opposite party no.1 resisted the case contending that on request of the opposite party no.3 on telephone, the opposite party no.1 provided operation theatre in his nursing home. The second operation was conducted on 17.8.2002 by the opposite partyno.3 in the nursing home of opposite party no.1. Before admission in the nursing home of the opposite party no.1, the complainant was in serious condition. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 conducted the operation in the nursing home of opposite party no.1.The opposite party no.1 has not participated in that operation. The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.
The opposite party no.2 filed counter contending that he saw the complainant on 13.8.2002 for the first time at Savtri Nursing home of the oppose party no.1. At that time the neck of the complainant was in bleeding condition and it was required to reopen the operated portion. The opposite party no.3 explained about the risk to reopen the operation site for which the father fo the complainant had given his consent. In the presence of opposite party no.3 he reopened the operative portion and at that time a cyst was ruptured and that cyst might be a lymph node or thyroglossal without thyroid. As per the clinical reports of the complainant the cyst was already ruptured due to previous operation. The opposite party no.2 conducted the operation and closed the operated portion and advised the complainant to stay for a period of one week as inpatient but her father got discharged her from the hospital within three days therefrom; without consent of the opposite party even before the wound was healed. The opposite party no.2 neither participated in the conducting operation in Datta Sai Nursing Home of opposite party no.3 nor at Savitri Nursing home of opposite party no.1.
The opposite party no.3 filed counter contending that he has rendered his service free of cost by advising the patient to consult the ENT surgeon as the opposite party no.3 is not qualified to give treatment to the complainant. The opposite party no.3 is a government doctor. The complainant availed for the facility of consulting him in the primary health centre run by the Government of A.P. and as such the Govt.
Hospital cannot be regarded as service hired for consideration.
The opposite party no.3 neither gave treatment to the complainant nor received any consideration from her.
The complainant filed her affidavit. Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on her behalf.
The opposite parties no.1 to 3 had filed their respective affidavits. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
The District Forum allowed the complaint holding that the opposite party no.3 is inexperienced doctor and suppressed the fact of removal of the thyroid gland.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party no.3 has preferred appeal contending that he had not performed surgery on the complainant and that there was no expert evidence to point out the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.3. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are responsible for conducting the wrong operation. The complainant is not a consumer as the opposite party no.3 has not charged any fee from her.
The points for consideration are
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (1)(d) of C.P.Act?
2. Whether there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 to 3 in the treatment of the complainant?
3. To what relief?
POINT NO:1 The complainant is a minor girl of 11 years at the time of filing of the complaint before the District Forum. She approached the opposite party no.3 on 25.8.2002 with complaint of bulging of her neck. The opposite party no.3 explained the father of the complainant that the complainant was to be operated upon for which Rs.1000/- was demanded as the operation charges. On 29.8.2002 the complainant was taken to the nursing home of the opposite partyno.3, Dutta Sai Nursing Home at Haripuram for the purpose of the surgery. The opposite party no.3 raised an objection that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning Sec.2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act as he had referred her to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 without charging any fees.
At the time the complainant consulted the opposite party no.3 for the first time in regard to her neck problem, the opposite party no.3 was working as Civil Asst. Surgeon in Govt. Dispensary at Haripuram.
It is a case of horrifying experience for a minor girl who had been treated by the opposite party no.3 but the doctor disowned the treatment given by him taking shelter under the guise of his reference stated to have been given in Govt. Hospital as at the relevant time he was working there as Civil Assistant Surgeon. The complainant has not only been subjected to cruel treatment by the opposite party no.3 she has also been kept in the wilderness by his statement that he has not treated her nor conducted any surgery on her as also that he did not run Sri Dutta Sai Nursing Home, at Haripuram in Srikakulam District. The helplessness of the girl has been taken advantage by the opposite party no.3 in the absence of any documents evidencing his conducting surgery on the poor girl. This type of peculiar situation, however, has met with its logical end by the statement of the opposite party no.1 who is no other than the doctor running Savitri Nursing Home at Sompeta in Srikakulam District where the girl was referred to by the opposite party no.3 on his failure to perform the operation in Duttasai Nursing Home.
The statement of the opposite party no.3 that he did neither treat nor conduct any operation upon the complainant is belied by the evidence of the opposite party no.1 which has been adduced in the shape of affidavit that the opposite party no.3 spoke to him on phone about the unsuccessful surgery performed by him. The opposite party no.1 has stated that the opposite party no.3 informed him that during the course of operation performed by him on the complainant certain complications arose which can only be addressed in the well equipped hospital and for the purpose of attending on the problems, the patient was to be shifted to the nursing home of the opposite party no.1 where the opposite party no.3 had arranged for performing of damage control second surgery on the complainant by the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.1 has, in para 8 of the counter specifically dealt with the treatment given by the oppose party no.3 to the complainant. The relevant portion in the said paragraph runs as under:
This opposite party also submit that at the time of admitted (sic-admission) into his hospital by the complainant daughter she was already conducted operation to her throat and the said injury is in bleeding condition. Later, the opposite party no.3 has approached the oppose party and stated that he was conducted the operation but it was not succeeded so he called the expert Dr.Balaga Ventkata Rao i.e., opposite party no.2 to conduct the second surgery. ( emphasis supplied) It is pertinent to note that the opposite party no.1 has stated that the complainant has not paid any fees for having utilized the operation theatre in his nursing home.
The opposite party no.1 has stated that he has admitted the complainant in his nursing home with the hope that the opposite partyno.3 would pay the operation theatre charges after collecting the same from the complainant. The opposite partyno.1 is a doctor running a private nursing home at Sompeta. The statement of the opposite partyno.1 is not denied by the opposite party no.3. The opposite partyno.3 treated the complainant not in the government hospital but in Dutta Sai Nursing home being run by him at Haripuram. Apart from the evidence of the opposite party no.1, there is an admission by the opposite party no.3, in the grounds of appeal that the opposite party no.3 was present at the operation theatre along with the father of the complainant in the nursing home of the opposite party no.1 when the operation was performed on the complainant by the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
It is interesting to see the opposite party no.3 claiming not to have received any fees and just referred the patient to the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.3 proceeded from Haripuram to Sompet to be present along with the father of the complainant. No doctor in the government hospital would refer a patient to the private nursing home and without charging any fees from the patient, would leave his work place to be present near the operation theatre along with the relatives of the patient. All these circumstances conclusively prove that the opposite partyno.3 performed surgery upon the complainant by charging a sum of Rs.1,000/-.
In Smt.savita garg vs The Director, National Heart Institure 2004CTJ 1009, the Supreme Court held:
It is the common experience that when a patient goes to a Private clinic, he goes by the reputation of the clinic and with the hope that proper care will be taken by the Hospital Autho rities .It is not possible for the patient to know that which, doctor, will treat him. When a patient is admitted to a private clinic/hospital it is hospital/clinic which engages the doctors for treatment.. They charge fee for services rendered by them and they are supposed to bestow the best care The opposite party no.1 has stated that he had provided the operation theatre and nursing home to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and except that he had not participated in the operation or had collected any amount from the complainant.
Admittedly, the hospital Savitri Nursing home being run by the opposite party no.1 is a private hospital; it is neither a charitable organization nor a government hospital where all the patients irrespective of their paying capacity are treated free of charge. The contention of the opposite party no.1 that neither the father of the complainant nor the opposite party no.3 had paid him the operation theatre charges cannot be accepted as tenable.
It is important to note that after the operation was performed, the complainant was treated during the post operative period for about three days in the nursing home of the opposite party no.1.
The opposite party no.1 does not state of any charges the stay of the complainant for the three days subsequent to the operation. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 cannot contend that he did not receive any amount from the father of the complainant.
The opposite party no.2 adopting the course of defence taken by the opposite parties no.1 and 3 stated that he had not received any amount from the complainant for performing the operation. The opposite party no.2 is a doctor and at the relevant time working in the Community Hospital, Somapeta. The opposite party no.2 states that on the request of the opposite party no.3 he performed the operation on the complainant at the nursing home of the opposite party no.1, without charging any fees. It is pertinent to note the opposite parties no.1 and 3 had also stated that they had not charged any amount from the complainant. The opposite parties no.1 and 3 are the doctors and at the relevant time they were working in the government hospital. The opposite party no.3 had collected an amount of RS.1,000/- from the father of the complainant stating that he would perform tonsillectomy on the complainant. Likewise, the opposite party no.1 had collected a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant through the opposite party no.3. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 performed the operation in the nursing home of the opposite party no.1. According to the complainant, opposite party no.1 also participated in the operation proceedings along with the opposite parties no.2 and 3. Any amount collected from the father of the complainant would be deemed to have been received by the opposite parties no.1 to 3. Hence, we hold that the complainant is a consumer and can invoke the provisions of the C.P.Act.
POINT NO.2 The complainant was suffering from bulging of her neck. She was taken by her father to the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.3 contends that he just referred the complainant to ENT specialist and he had not treated the complainant at all. The complainant states that the opposite party no.3 by charging an amount of RS.1000/- had conducted operation claiming it to be tonsillectomy at his private hospital, Dattasai Hospital at Haripuram. We would consider the circumstances and the condition of the complainant at the time she was admitted to the nursing home of the opposite partyno.1 a little later and insofar as the defence of the opposite party no.3 that he had not treated the complainant is concerned, we have already held in the aforementioned paragraphs that the complainant and her father approached the opposite party no.3 on 15.8.2002 consulted the opposite party no.3 in the government hospital at Haripuram and on the advice of the opposite party no.3 the complainant was admitted in his private nursing home, Dattasai Nursing Home at Haripuram.
From the time of admission of the complainant in Dattasai Nursing of the opposite party no.3, the allegations and imputations would come into picture where the opposite party no.3 bluntly denied that he had not performed the operation as against the statement of the father of the complainant that the opposite parties no.2 and 3 performed the operation on 16.8.2002 in the nursing home of the opposite party no.3. the opposite party no.2 denied that he had not performed the surgery on the complainant in the nursing home of the opposite party no.3. The total denial of any treatment by the opposite party no.3 has to be considered in the light of the statement of the opposite party no.2 that he had not treated nor perfored surgery on the complainant in the nursing home of the opposite party no.3. By the statement of the opposite party no.2, two aspects become clear that the opposite party no.3 was running private hospital under the name and style Dattasai Nursing Home at Haripuram and secondly the opposite party no.3 performed operation on the complainant on 16.8.2002 in his nursing home.
Complications developed immediately after the opposite party no.3 conducted surgery on the complainant. The opposite party no.1 has stated that the opposite party no.3 informed on telephone that complainant was being referred in serious condition and she need to undergo another surgery in the nursing home of the opposite party no.1. On 17.8.2002 the father of the complainant had admitted the complainant in Savitri Nursing Home of the opposite party no.1 at Sompeta where on the same day of her admission, the complainant had undergone another surgery which, according to the complainants father was performed by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 whereas the opposite party no.1 has contended that he just let the operation theatre to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 for performing the operation on the complainant and he had not participated in the operation proceedings. Admittedly, the opposite party no.1 is a doctor running Savitri Nursing home wherein the opposite parties no.2 and 3 performed operation on the complainant on 17.8.2002.
The opposite party no.3 had contended by filing the appeal that it is the opposite parties no.1 and 2 who were negligent in treating the complainant. The opposite party no.1 is the administrative head of the hospital supervising the conducting of the surgeries and arranging for the necessary equipments therefor prior to, during and post operative stages in the case not only of the patients admitted at his behest but also at the option of the opposite parties no.2 and
3. As such the responsibility of the opposite party no.1 is on par with that of the opposite parties no.2 and 3 in the case of the complainant since the time she was admitted in Savitri Nursing Home till she was discharged therefrom.
Originally, the complainant was admitted to the nursing home of the opposite party no.3 with the problem of bulging of her neck. It is not known what happened in the nursing home of the opposite party no.3 as also the nature of the operation performed by the opposite party no.3. The net result of the proceedings was that the complainant was put to a severe condition which required an urgent surgery. The opposite party no.2 has stated that the complainants life would be at risk if the surgery is not performed again on the complainant on war foot basis. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 had performed the operation in the nursing home of the opposite party no.1 and here also utter confusion prevails as to what operation the opposite parties no.2 and 3 had performed on the complainant. The opposite party no.2 states that he had performed the operation and as such he knows the fact better than any other doctor and according to him he had reopened the operative portion and at that time a cyst was ruptured that cyst may be a lymphnode or thyroglossal without thyroid. However, the opposite party no.1 had issued certificate 20.8.2002 that the complainant had undergone sistruntic operation under G/A for Thyroglossal cyst.
The opposite party no.2 has stated that the opposite party no.1 had issued the certificate under wrong notion that the opposite parties no.2 and 3 conducted operation for thyroglossal cyst. In para 17 of the counter of the opposite party no.2 it is stated the opposite party no.2 also submits that he never participated in conducting the operation at Dutta sai Nursing Home Haripuram and further the opposite party no.1 was (sic.,has) not participated in conducting the operation at his Savitri Nursing Home, Sompet and he only provided his nursing home to conduct the operation. So that the opposite party no.1 might (have) in wrong notion he issued a certificate to the complainant as we have conducted operation for thyroglossal cyst. But the opposite party no.2 has not conducted thyroglossal cyst operation and also not removed any thyroid gland as alleged by the complainant in the complaint (emphasis supplied).
The opposite party no.1 has issued the letter to the effect that the complainant had undergone thyroglossal cyst operation whereas the opposite party no.2 contends that the opposite party no.1 was not in the operation theatre at the time the operation was conducted and according to him he has not conducted thyroglossal cyst operation . He has stated that when he opened the operation style, the cyst was ruptured. The opposite party no.3 has bluntly denied his presence and participation in the operation at his nursing home and at the nursing home of the opposite party no.1 as well. In the grounds of appeal the opposite party goes on to say The lower forum has failed to appreciate that the opposite party no.1 and 2 before the lower forum have conducted the operation on the patient at the nursing home of the opposite party no.1, and the appellant herein was present with the parents of the complainant/patient outside the operation theatre. All the opposite parties have been not fair enough to disclose to the complainant as to the exact condition after the operation and the nature of the operation that she had undergone. The opposite party no.2 contends that the complainant was discharged against his advice for a stay of seven days after the operation and he also contends that he does not know subsequently what happened to the complainant.
The complainant after the operation and discharge from the nursing home of the opposite party no.1, the complainant has stated that she had developed complications such as, nervousness, sweating of the body and behavioral change whereon she consulted the opposite party no.3 who informed her that it would take few months for her to restore normalcy and asked her not to consult him any further in future. The complainant was compelled to consult Dr.V.Manmadha Rao General Surgeon Visakhapatnam who examined the complainant and advised her for Thyroid Panel test.
The investigation report issued by SRL Ranbaxy has shown elevated TSH levels which is indicative of primary hypothyroidism. After going through thyroid panel report issued by SRL Ranbaxy, Dr.V.Manmadha Raoi, General Surgeon, Visakhapatnam referred her to Seven Hills Hospital Visakhapatnam where she had undergone thyroid scan. The scanning report reads as under:
1. no area of trace-uptake is visible in the neck-thyroid bed. 2. no other focus of trace-uptake suggesting ectopic thyroidal tissue is visible in the scan. 3. Salivary glands on either side show normal trace-concentration.
The impression given by the consultant was that the features and findings mentioned in the scan commensurate with post-thyroidectomy status. Therefore, at the Seven Hills Hospital on 26.8.2003 the complainant and her father came to know that total thyroid gland of the complainant was removed during the operation by the opposite parties. Dr.Mandmadha Rao, Dr.K.Y.A.V.Subrahmanyam, Asst. Professor and Endocrinologist informed the father of the complainant that thyroid gland from the neck of the complainant was removed and that the complainant would suffer stunted growth does not attain puberty and she has to lead a miserable life. Thus the complainant was not informed of the operation she had undergone and the complications thereof till Dr.Manmadha Rao and Subrahmanyam had revealed that thyroid gland from her neck was removed during the operation.
In Jacob Mathew Vs the State of Punjab and another reported in 2005 CPJ 9 (SC) the Supreme Court held that a doctor should not experiment unless necessary and even then he should originarily get a written consent from the patient. Further, it was held that an expert should be consulted in case of any doubt. In the case on hand the opposite parties had not consulted any expert in the gravity of the situation where the complainant was operated upon and stayed in the nursing home of the opposite party no.1 for about three days from the date of operation.
The consistent version of the complainant and her father that they had been kept in dark and were not informed of the operation procedure and the complications thereof on both the occasions, at the nursing home of the opposite party no.3 and thereafter while the surgery was conducted on the complainant in the nursing home of the opposite party no.1. The Supreme Court had summarized the principles relating to consent as follows :
(i) A doctor has to seek and secure the consent of the patient before commencing a 'treatment' (the term 'treatment' includes surgery also). The consent so obtained should be real and valid, which means that : the patient should have the capacity and competence to consent; his consent should be voluntary; and his consent should be on the basis of adequate information concerning the nature of the treatment procedure, so that he knows what is consenting to.
(ii) The 'adequate information' to be furnished by the doctor (or a member of his team) who treats the patient, should enable the patient to make a balanced judgment as to whether he should submit himself to the particular treatment as to whether he should submit himself to the particular treatment or not. This means that the Doctor should disclose (a) nature and procedure of the treatment and its purpose, benefits and effect; (b) alternatives if any available; (c) an outline of the substantial risks; and (d) adverse consequences of refusing treatment. But there is no need to explain remote or theoretical risks involved, which may frighten or confuse a patient and result in refusal of consent for the necessary treatment. Similarly, there is no need to explain the remote or theoretical risks of refusal to take treatment which may persuade a patient to undergo a fanciful or unnecessary treatment. A balance should be achieved between the need for disclosing necessary and adequate information and at the same time avoid the possibility of the patient being deterred from agreeing to a necessary treatment or offering to undergo an unnecessary treatment.
(iii) Consent given only for a diagnostic procedure, cannot be considered as consent for therapeutic treatment. Consent given for a specific treatment procedure will not be valid for conducting some other treatment procedure. The fact that the unauthorized additional surgery is beneficial to the patient, or that it would save considerable time and expense to the patient, or would relieve the patient from pain and suffering in future, are not grounds of defence in an action in tort for negligence or assault and battery. The only exception to this rule is where the additional procedure though unauthorized, is necessary in order to save the life or preserve the health of the patient and it would be unreasonable to delay such unauthorized procedure until patient regains consciousness and takes a decision.
The opposite party no.3 had gone to the extent of disowning the treatment rendered by him to the complainant at his private nursing and at the nursing home of the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.3 althrough had attempted to seek protection under the cover of the service rendered by him in the Govt. Hospital in suppression of his negligent treatment subjecting the complainant to physical and mental harassment in his Dutta sai Nursing Home. The negligence of the opposite party no.2 has not been so high in magnitude compared to the recklessness of the opposite party no.3, yet the opposite party no.2 was not fair enough to inform the father of the complainant about the repercussions of the surgery he had performed as also the operation performed by the opposite party no.3 which had taken the complainant near the fangs of the death. The opposie party no.1 though directly had not participated in the operation that was performed in his nursing home, yet the opposite party no.1 had not informed the complainant about the condition of the complainant prior to and after the operation as also the requirement of the complainants stay in his hospital for post-operative period. All the opposite parties had committed deficient service by negligently treating the complainant though the maginitude of the negligence varies from one opposite party to the other.
The Honble Supreme Court in Martin F.DSouza V. Mohd. Ishfaq held:
Although this decision has laid down that it is the duty of a doctor to attend to a patient who is brought to him in an emergency, it does not state what penalty will be imposed on a doctor who refuses to attend the said patient.
Consequently it will depend on the fact and circumstances of the case. However, this case is important because nowadays health care has often become a business, as is mentioned in George Bernard Shaws play The Doctors Dilemma.
The medical profession is a noble profession and it should not be brought down to the level of a simple business or commerce. The truth of the matter, sadly, is that today in India many doctors (though not all ) have become totally money-minded, and have forgotten their Hippocratic oath. Since most people in India are poor the consequence is that for them proper medical treatment is next to impossible and hence they have to rely on quacks. This is a disgrace to a noble profession.
The question arises as to the quantum of compensation to be awarded against the opposite parties no.1 to 3. The District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The District Forum has not taken into consideration of the vicissitudes of life the complainant has to suffer as she being a girl in her teens has to suffer the effect of deprivation of thyroid gland which according to the Dr.Subrahmanyam would result in stunted growth and difficulty in attaining puberty etc. She has to suffer all her life the thyroid related problems which the complainant was destined to bear due to the negligent treatment of the opposite parties.
Insofar as the proportionate liability of the opposite parties is concerned, the opposite party no.3 in no manner of doubt had caused enormous loss not only by the negligent treatment rendered by him but also by his blunt denial and disowning of the very treatment he had rendered subjecting the complainant to the helpless condition. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding the opposite party no.3 liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. Compared to the negligence exhibited by the opposite party no.3, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 can be said to have contributed to a lesser extent in exposing the complainant to the disaster of deprivation of the tyroid gland.
Therefore, we are inclined to hold the opposite parties no.1 and 2 each liable to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- out of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum in favour of the complainant.
In the result the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order dated 14.9.2007 passed by the District Forum. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- each and the opposite party no.3 directed to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- before the District Forum.
The parties shall pay interest @ 9% per annum from 26.3.2004 on the respective amounts. The opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
After the amount is deposited by the opposite parties, the District forum shall deposit the same in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till the complainant attains majority. The complainant is at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on the said amount. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.26.05.2010 Kmk*