State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mandala Naresh Kumar vs Kims Hospital on 13 March, 2026
1
ADDITIONAL BENCH
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
C.C.No.219 OF 2017
Between:
Mr. Mandala Naresh Kumar, S/o.M.Chandra Skahar,
Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 1/215/195,
Madhava Nagar Colony, Miyapur, Hyderabad-500049,
Rep. By his father Sri. Mandala Chandra
Sekhar, S/o.Bhadrachalam, aged about 65 years,
Occ: Business.
.....Complainants
And
1.KIMS Hospital, M/s. KIMS Hospital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By its Director Chebroul Harini, O/o. Building No.1-112/86, Survey No.55/ΕΕ, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500084.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep.by its Manager/Authorized person, Divisional Office-4, 6-2-976, 1st floor, Pavani Estates, PBNO.74, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500004.
3. KIMS Hospital, Multi Super Specialty Hospital, Rep by its Dr. B. Bhaskara Rao, Managing Director, CEO, Minister Road, Secunderabad-500003 (Opposite parties 2 & 3 are included by way of implead petition order bearing IA NO.1581/2018).
.....Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainants : M/s. AVV Badarinarayaba & Associates Counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 & 3 : Mr. G. Sudershan Reddy Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2: S. Satyananda Rao QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI KOLLA RANGA RAO- PRESIDING OFFICER-
MEMBER - (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TW O THOUSAND TWENTY SIX 2 (PER HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL)
1. The complaint is filed U/s.17 (1) (a) (i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking directions against the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,50,906/- and Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @12% per annum from 16.10.2016 till realization; to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs.10,00,000/- for future treatment of the Complainant; Rs.10,00,000/- for damage caused to the health of the Complainant; and Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and for costs.
2. The brief averments of the original complaint and the amended complaint are that, the Complainant on 19.10.2016 at 2:00 PM was taken before Pranaam Hospital at Miyapur due to high reeling sensation and vomiting's; that Doctors advised him to go for KIMS Hospital for better treatment suspecting the patient developed CVA; that at 6:00 PM on the same day patient was admitted in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital and Doctors suggested MRI test; that informed that sedatives is to be administered as patient was not co-operating; that father of Complainant consulted their relative Dr. Ramalingeshwar Rao at Guntur who advised not to undergo MRI on sedatives, but it advised fro anesthesia to be given under the supervision of anesthetist; that the same was informed to the duty Doctor and without paying any attention to the advise performed MRI by giving sedatives by technician instead an a anesthetist; that patient developed shivering's, breathlessness and change of colour of body and became unconscious; that the attendants were informed by the Doctors that patient suffered cardiac respiratory arrest and 3 performed chest compression and then shifted to MICU; that during resuscitation process patient had aspiration and developed pneumonia and enterococci organism as per the culture and sensitivity report; that he developed hypotrotenemia, renal shut down and infection with raised counts and went into coma; that on 24.10.2016 Doctors advised for tracheotomy, but was suggested to go to KIMS, Minister's Road, Secunderabad to perform the same; that it was done only to avoid medical complications at Opposite Party No.1 hospital.
3. It is further submitted that the tracheotomy was conducted in the Opposite Party No.3 hospital thereby collected huge medical expenses; that to the Doctor B. Bhaskara Rao, the Director of KIMS Hospital, everything was informed about the gross negligence and mistake committed at the Opposite Party No.1 hospital by the Doctors therein, and without saying anything, another MRI was done which disclosed right lateral, medullary syndrome actieal i.e., 08 days after admission in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital; that patient was kept on mechanical ventilation, weaned intermittently and was put on C-PAP; that renal impairment was not corrected though patient developed qundriparesis, drowsiness and instability in hyproteinemia and same deficiency even observed by the Doctors at People's Trauma Hospital, Guntur, in which patient was admitted after forcible discharge from Opposite Party NO.3; that Doctors at Opposite Party No.3 recommended for rehabilitation centre to avoid further treatment; that Opposite Party No.1 & 3 hospitals are responsible for the negligent treatment given to the patient and for failure to 4 provide required treatment, but collected huge amounts; that the original bill was given for Rs.12,14,932/-, but when their mistakes are pointed out, given the discount and collected Rs.5,50,906/-; that patient was taken to the People's Trauma Hospital, Guntur, in an ambulance by spending huge money; that the patient was treated by Dr. Ramalingeshwara Rao, for about 03 months by keeping the patient in ICU; that his health condition though improved still unable to walk without a walker or attendant; that recovered from renal failure and still feeling weakness in both upper and lower limbs with it mild pain/burning sensation in the left lower limb; that patient required further treatment in future worth Rs.10,00,000/-; that unqualified Doctors gave wrong treatment to the patient at Opposite Party No.1 & 3 hospitals and they are liable for negligence and deficiency of service; that letter was addressed for the supply of CCTV, Camera, Video footage on 16.11.2016, but it was not given on the ground that, it is not available; that on 27.07.,2017 complaint was given to the Registrar, Telangana State Medical Council against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3; hence, the complaint.
4. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.1 is that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that Complainant is put to strict to proof of all the averments made in the complaint except those that are admitted; that there is no cause of action to the Complainant; that the complaint which is signed by the father of Complainant has no locus standi to file the same; that the Complainant not suffered any damage of health or due to any alleged negligence in the 5 Opposite Party No.1 & 3 hospitals; that the complaint is filed to make a wrongful gain with false and frivolous pleadings; that as the Complainant approached medical council, barred to file the present complaint, as cannot approach different forums; that by the time of admission in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital, patient in unconscious state, unable to move, unable to do regular works.
5. It is further submitted that the patient was having past medical history of hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia and morbid obesity and came to casuality of the Opposite Party No.1 on 19.10.2016 with a complaint of persistent vertigo, right side unsteadiness and elevated BP with 240/140 mm hg around 6:30 PM; that the ER Physician consulted Dr. V. Padma, who suspected CVA and recommended MRI plain brain scan to rule out posterior circulation stroke; that cardiology resident evaluated the patient and after controlled the BP reasonably shifted to MRI suite; that Dr. V. Padma reached the hospital around 9:45 PM and the patient was in MICU by then; that the ER Physician informed Dr. V. Padma that Complainant had a cardio respiratory arrest in the Radiology department around 9:55 PM with pulseless code blue called and on resuscitation was intubated and his BP was 120/80 mm hg on inotropes and saturations were at 96% on ventilator; that patient had oral bleeding on intubation. Anti-platelets were not given and the limited MRI shows no stroke on DWI images and all other stroke treatment was given; that the Complainant had seizures and was started anti-epileptics and after oral bleeding resolved started on aspirin and prophylactic dose of fragmin; that 6 X-Ray shows infiltrate on right side, patient developed fever and given antibiotics and opinion of pulmonologist was sought for; that patient was weaned off inotropes was persistently febrile; that enterococci grew in ET cultures, EEG shows defuse slowing consistent with encephalopathy; that patient did not tolerate weaning attempts on the ventilator; that tracheostomy was planned, but due to weight of the patient transport to Opposite Party No.3 was done on 26.10.2026 around 4:00 PM after a detailed discussion with medical superintendent, surgical team and family members of the patient.
6. It is further submitted that the patient was subjected at Opposite Party No.3 with another MRI brain, which shows right lateral medullary syndrome, EEG shows defuse encephalopathy, underwent tracheostomy and continued with anti-platelets, statins, anti-biotics, DVT prophylaxis and anti-epileptics; that the Complainant developed mild sepsis, mild renal impairment and treated accordingly by medication and came into consciousness and following simple commonds with fluctuating eye to eye contact; that at this stage the attendants of the patient wanted for discharge against medical advice; that there is no medical negligence or any deficiency of service in treatment in Opposite Party No.1 & 3 hospital; that the claim is excessive and there is no reason for such claim; that the Opposite Party No.1 & 3 hospitals are covered with insurance with Opposite Party No.2 during the period 01.02.2016 to 31.01.2017. With this requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-. 7
7. The brief averments of the Opposite Party No.2 is that there is no medical negligence or any deficiency of service by the Opposite Party No.1 & 3 while providing treatment to the Complainant; that there is no nexus between Complainant and Opposite Party No.2; that the policy was only to cover error and omission treatment by the Opposite Party No.1 & 3 and it is only a policy of indemnity subject to the terms, clauses, exceptions and warrantees. With this requested to dismiss the complaint.
8. The brief averments of the Opposite Party No.3 are almost similar to the written version of Opposite Party No.1; that the other averments are Opposite Party No.3 had ICU and other facilities; that when the bill was given for Rs.10,53,811//- the Complainant paid only Rs.3,65,906/- and Opposite Party No.3 was constrained to book the balance amount as non-recoverable; that the Complainant suppressed the details of the treatment that was given to him at Guntur. With this requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-.
9. To prove the case Mr. Chandra Shekhar father of the Complainant filed evidence and additional evidence affidavits as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A20. However, instead of marking the report of the Telangana State Medical Council, dated 13.12.2019 as Ex.A20, by mistake it is again marked as Ex.A10 and by that time Ex.A10 was already on record. Dr. V. Sudheer/RW1 filed evidence affidavit for Opposite Party No.1. Dr. B. Bhaskara Rao, Managing Director of Opposite Party No.3 filed evidence affidavit as RW2. Ex.B1 alone is marked for the Opposite 8 Party No.1 & 3. No evidence affidavit is filed and no document is marked for Opposite Party No.2.
10. Now the points for consideration are:-
(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3?
(ii) Whether the complaint is entitled for the reliefs as sought for? If so, for what amount?
11. Heard the arguments on both sides. For the sake of convenience the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the complaint. Written arguments are filed for the Complainant and also for Opposite Party No.1 & 3. For the sake of convenience the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the complaint.
12. Points No.1 to 2:- The case relates to alleged medical negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1 & 3, in providing treatment to the Complainant. PW1 is the father of Complainant and he was present right from the beginning and also the man who paid the amount for the treatment given to the Complainant in various hospitals. No expert evidence is adduced by the Complainant to prove exactly on what aspects of the treatment, the negligence had happened. PW1 was not at all cross examined. RW1 & 2 were also not cross examined. The Opposite Party No.1 & 3 have not filed any documents to show what sort of treatment was given to the Complainant in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital and the results of various investigations conducted. Ex.A10 to Ex.A19 are the bills/receipts etc., relating to the expenditure incurred for the treatment of Complainant in the 9 various hospital like Pranaam Hospital. Miyapur, Hyderabad, Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3 hospitals, Hyderabad and People's Trauma and Emergency Hospital at Guntur. In the absence of any expert evidence this commission is not expected to decide the aspect of negligence in an in-depth manner.
Ex.A20 is the report of the Telangana M edical Council on the complaint lodged by PW 1 alleging negligence on Opposite Party No.1 & 3. The perusal of the Ex.A20 report goes to show that, ethics committee not discussed anything about the negligence of Doctors at Opposite Party No.1 & 3 hospitals and also not discussed what sort of precautions or line of treatment should have been adopted by the Doctors at Opposite Party No.1 & 3. The report in nutshell concluded with an observation/recommendation by giving warning to Dr. Mahammed Aasim Siddiqui and Dr. Abu Syeed Sayeem not to entertain the responsibility of handling emergency cases on their own, without explaining the seriousness of the situation. It is further observed that Dr. Padma Veerapaneni, who has shown as a specialist in Neurology is not registered as a specialist and warned her not to display her status as a specialist. In the above circumstances with the limited scope of expertise, case is being decided in following manner.
13. It is the contention of PW1 that as per the advice of Pranaam Hospital at Miyapur, the Complainant (hereinafter will be called as patient), brought to the Opposite Party No.1 hospital on 19.10.2016 at 6:00 PM and despite their objection the Doctors in Opposite Party No.1 by giving sedatives conducted MRI instead of 10 administering anesthesia with a qualified anesthetist and due to the same the patient developed cardiac arrest and subsequentl health complications. It is further stated that only the services of a technician was taken to conduct MRI and the Doctors who initially provided treatment and subsequently treated in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital are not experts, thereby they have caused maximum damage to the health of the patient.
14. To appreciate the pleadings of the Complainant first we have to observe what was the condition of the patient that was recorded by Pranaam Hospitals. Ex.A8 is the prescription/referral letter of the said hospital dated 19.10.2016. It goes to show that patient was taken to the hospital at 2:39 PM, by that time BP reading was 140/180 mm and 140 is corrected as 240. Beneath the same the reading is noted as 170/100 mm hg, he was advised CT brain (plain) and referred to higher centre for further management (KIMS). Injections, statin was given and medicines were prescribed. Allergies column kept blank (Handwriting of the Doctor is difficult to follow). They have conducted serology report which resulted negative for TROP-T at 4:43 PM.
15. Ex.A3 is the ER initial assessment form the recordings of Dr. Padma Veerapaneni at Opposite Party No.1 hospital, shows the patient was brought by family member - C/o- sudden onset - profuse sweating from 12:30 AM today, complains of seizures - inability to stand - walk - swaying to right side - SOB + recurrent vomitings. His BP is recorded as 230/150 mg - HR 112 - SPO2 96% - GRBS 113. The condition of the patient is noted as conscious, coherent. Tests like HB, RBS, RFT, LFT, thyroid profile, 11 lipid profile etc., are prescribed besides radiology reports like MRI brain stroke protocol, C & R, 2D Echo colour Doppler (some writings are illegible). It is important to note that Dr. Padma S. Veerapaneni though claimed herself, as specialist is not having any degrees for such claim. It is also mentioned that patient had right side weakness - one day; dizziness - one day; profuse sweating - one day; SOB - one day as chief complaints. These details are not mentioned in the first page of Ex.A3. It further goes to show that on general physical examination pulse rate found to be 92; BP 120/80; temperature 98.6 F; SPOT 96%. One does not know on what date these readings were made. The injections that were administered are noted in the last page on 19.10.2016 at 10:00 PM by Dr. Kiran.
[[
16. "As per the written version of Opposite Party No.1 at page 3 in para 10 (B). It is submitted that ER physician discussed the case with Dr. Padma Veerapaneni over the phone and she suspected CVA and recommended MRI brain screen to rule out posterior circulation stroke. Cardiology resident evaluated patient and after BP was reasonably controlled patient was reportedly shifted one floor up to the MRI suite. When Dr. Padma Veerapaneni, reached the hospital around 9:45 PM the patient was in MICU. The intensivist and ER physician informed Dr. Padma that patient had a cardio respiratory arrest in the radiology department at 8:55 PM. The patient was pulseless code blue called, he was promptly resuscitated and was intubated, his BP was 120/80 mm hg on inotropes and on ventilator. Patient had oral bleeding after 12 intubation. Anti-platelets were not given. Limited MRI showed no stroke on DWI images".
17. The patient is treated as inpatient in Opposite Party No.1 hospital from 19.10.2016 to 26.10.2016 till he was transferred to Opposite Party No.3 hospital. As already stated supra the case sheet of patient, the amount charged for the treatment in Opposite Party No.1 hospital is not filed Opposite Party No.1 In the other words, no e vidence is forthcoming what had happened to the patient in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital including the line of treatment. In the Ex.A20 on can observe that the patient was treated by (i) Dr. Padma Veerapaneni, (ii) Dr. Md. Aasim Siddique (iii) Dr. Abu Sayeed Sayeem in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital. Dr. R. Swetha, Medical Superintendent in Opposite Party No.1 hospital filed her affidavit before the ethics committee. In the absence of any documentary evidence and any affidavit by the concerned Doctors who treated the patient at Opposite Party No.1 hospital, basing on the averments/explanation given by Doctors of Opposite Party No.1 hospital including the Dr. R. Swetha, cannot be taken as a gospel truth. In the absence of case sheet, it is difficult to appreciate at what stage of MRI the patient suffered cardiac arrest and the treatment that was given by them and when his heart started working and what was his BP/HTN by then. It is stated by Dr. Abu Sayeed Sayeem that after obtaining the cardiology clearance by the cardiologist MRI was conducted and it was conducted by "medical emergency technician". It is further stated that, the patient is not at all co-operating for continuation of the scan and a decision was taken to give sedation 13 before terminating the scan midway and then attendants of the patient were counselled explained about the possible side effects and then he called the EMT to administer injection, who did it. The ethics committee categorically observed that Dr. Md. Asim Siddique and Dr. Aabu Sayeed Sayeem who came to the hospital on an emergency have taken the responsibility of attending the patient (severe degree of hypertensive complications) on their own without explaining seriousness of the situations and also they are not qualified to handle emergency case of this nature, where the specialist was not available. It shows no specialist treated the patient at Opposite Party No.1 even though he was in the hospital for one week. It is submitted that only to conduct tracheotomy and due to non-availability of experts and material, was shifted to Opposite Party No.3 hospital. Therefore, we are of the emphatic view that the Opposite Party No.1 hospital and Doctors therein by then are negligent in treating the patient and their actions amounts to deficiency of service.
18. Ex.A4 is the discharge certificate issued by Opposite Party No.3 on 16.11.2016 mentioning summary of the case from 19.10.2016 onwards and how he was treated in both the hospitals under the sub-head course in the hospital. Admittedly, Dr. E A Varalakshmi treated the patient in the Opposite Party No.3 hospital. Here, also MRI was done on 27.10.2016 under anesthetist monitoring which shows right medullary infarct. EEG shows defuse. Patient was started on statins etc,. Opinion of Nephrologist taken and patient was advised elective tracheostomy by pulmonologist and it was done on 28.10.2016. On the next day 14 the patient is having spontaneous eye movements, but not following commands. After the treatment of nearly 15 to 16 days the condition of the patient was found to be improving in other parameters, still the relatives wanted to shift him on LAMA despite the risk in shifting. The patient was brought on ventilator support, but he went on "T" piece with safely secured tracheostomy. It is mentioned in the written version that the total bill Rs.10,53,811/-, but patient paid only Rs.3,65,906/- and rest was booked as balance not recoverable and Ex.A5 inpatient final bill is supporting the same.
19. Ex.A6 letter dated 20.05.2017 addressed by People's Trauma and Emergency Hospital, Guntur, dated 20.05.2017 shows that, by the time the patient brought to their hospital, he was drowsy, GCS 3R VET M4 eye, no eye contact present. BP 85/60 mm hg. He had right sided horners syndrome. He is responding to few commands, had quadriplegia. Urine output decrease. He had right sided facial weakness, RT pupil 4 mm dilated, LT side was normal, left upper and lower limbs were paralyzed and unable to move against gravity. The lab investigations revealed weight 110 Kgs; blood glucose levels normal limits, low serum albumin levels; he has hypothyroidism; tracheostomy tube insitu. Intermittent ventilator support was given for four days. Later, he was able to maintain respirations with T piece with Oxygen flow. The patient needs hospitalization treatment and rest about 03 months. They have also mentioned the condition of the patient at the time of discharge. As per the same he is able to walk with the help of walker and attendant, 15 recovered from renal failure. Regurgitation of food material while swallowing. The material coming out from the tracheostomy tube. Still on the ryles tube feeding, bronchoscopy, no fistula? Vagus and hypoglous involvement. Left side upper and lower limbs weakness present. Mild pain and burning sensation in the left lower limb. BP 130/80; SPOT 98% at the room temperature. Ex.A7 is the discharge summary of the said hospital it shows he was inpatient from 16.11.2016 to 20.05.2016 and medication was prescribed at the time of discharge. For the reasons better known to the Complainant, not examined any Doctor who treated in the hospital at Guntur and also to prove the money incurred for treatment including his condition at the time of admission and discharge etc,. It is already came on record that Dr. Ramalingeshwara Rao, is relative of PW1. In such circumstances PW1 should have examined the said Doctor. The hospital at Guntur is not mentioned in the Ex.A7 that, the patient was advised to undergo physiotherapy.
20. As already stated in the beginning no expert is examined to show that the root cause for all the complications suffered by the patient, is the resultant of the negligent treatment that was given in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital. Ex.A20 goes to show that, PW1 has not complained anything against the treatment provided by Dr. E A Varalakshmi at KIMS Hospital. In the Opposite Party No.3 hospital the patient was attended by various specialists periodically including nephrologists, endocrinologist and pulmonologist. Therefore, we are of the view that no compensation can be awarded for the 16 treatment provided to the patient in the Opposite Party No.3 hospital. The Opposite Party relied upon the following citations reported in
(a) 2005 (6) SCC 1 between Jacob Mathew & State of Punjab and another
(b) 1995 (6) SCC 651 between Indian Medical Association & VP Shantha
(c) 2010 (2) ALD 89 (SC) between Kusum Sharma & Batra Hospital.
After going through the above case law we are of the view that they are not applicable as far as the negligence of Opposite Party No.1 is concerned, but can be applied to the case Opposite Party No.3.
21. Ex.A11 goes to show that, PW1 paid in all Rs.3,65,906/-, and the same is supported by the final bill issued by Opposite Party No.3. In the absence of any proof about the nexus for the alleged negligent treatment given at Opposite Party No.1 hospital, the Opposite Party No.3 cannot be penalized for giving treatment in correct lines, besides given good discount in the bill. As per Ex.A12 on 20.10.2016 Rs.60,000/- was paid in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital by CARD. On 21.10.2016 another Rs.50,000/- was paid. On 25.10.2016 Rs.50,000/- was paid. Rs.20,000/- was paid on 19.10.2016. It shows Rs.1,80,000/- was paid in the Opposite Party No.1 hospital. The Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @12% per annum from 24.10.2016 till realization. For causing mental agony and also for damaging the health of PW1, the Opposite Party 17 No.1 hospital is liable to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and further liable to pay costs of Rs.30,000/-.
22. The liability of Opposite Party No.2 is to reimburse Opposite Party No.1 & 3 in case they found to be negligent in providing treatment to the patient. As Opposite Party No.1 is found to be negligent, the Opposite Party No.2 is liable to reimburse the amount payable to the Complainant. All the points are answered accordingly.
23. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Party No.1 with a liability to Opposite Party No.2 to reimburse the claim of the Complainant. The complaint is dismissed against Opposite Party No.3 with the following directions:-
(i) The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @12% p.a., from 24.10.2016 till realization.
(ii) Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the negligent treatment and for causing mental agony and avoidable expenditure till realization.
(iii) Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay costs of Rs.30,000/-.
(iv) The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to reimburse the above amounts to the Opposite Party No.1 after it pays the same to complainant.
(v) The complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed. 18
(vi) Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay interest @9% p.a., on Rs.15,00,000/- from the date of default till realization.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist on system, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this the 13th Day of March, 2026.
SD/- SD/-
------------------------- ----------------------
M EMBER M -J (P.O.) MEMBER(JUDL)
Dated : 13.03.2026
BS R
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAM INED
Evidence affidavit of Evidence on behalf of
The Complainants: Opposite parties:
PW1: Mr. Chandra Sekhar RW1: Mr. Dr. V. Sudhir
RW3: Dr. B. Bhaskar Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A1: is the copy of Demand Draft, dated 008.11.2017. Ex.A2: is the copy of Complainant the Registrar, Telangana Medical Council, Hyderabad.
Ex.A3: is the copy of ER Final Assessment Form. Ex.A4: is the copy of Discharge Summary, dated 16.11.2016. Ex.A5: is the copy of In Patient Final Bill.
Ex.A6: is the copy of Patient condition report at the time of admission People's Trauma Hospital, Guntur, dated 20.05.2017. Ex.A7: is the copy of Discharge Summary, dated 20.05.2017. Ex.A8: is the copy of Opinion report of Doctor, People's Trauma Hospital, Guntur.
Ex.A9: is the copy of Letter, dated 05.01.2017. Ex.A10: is the copy of bills/receipts 19 Ex.A11: is the copy of bills/receipts Ex.A12: is the copy of bills/receipts Ex.A13: is the copy of bills/receipts Ex.A14: is the copy of bills/receipts Ex.A15: is the copy of bills/receipts Ex.A16: is the copy of bills/receipts.
Ex.A17: is the copy of bills/receipts Ex.A18: is the copy of bills/receipts Ex.A19: is the copy of bills/receipts.
Ex.A20: is the copy of Report of the ethics committee of Telangana State Medical Council, dated 13.12.2019.
For Opposite Parties:
Ex.B1: is the copy of policy copy.
SD/- SD/-
--------------------------- ----------------------
MEMBER M-J (P.O.) M EMBER(JUDL)
Dt: 13.03.2026.
BS R