K VIJAYA LAKSHMI NURSING HOME Vs. GUMMADI SRIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order in C.C.No.80/2006 on the file of District Forum-II, Krishna at Vijayawada, the opposite parties preferred F.A.No.1362/08 and complainant preferred F.A.No.992/09. As both these appeals arise out of a common complaint, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant and his wife along with their minor son by name Gummadi Kartheek who was suffering with severe stomach ache approached Dr.M.Srinivas on 5.3.2004 at Gudivada who examined the complainant's son and referred him to Annapurna Multispeciality Hospital where the doctors examined him and took an X-ray and advised him to go to Vijayawada for obtaining KUB Scanning. Accordingly, the complainant visited the opp.parties hospital on 6.3.2004 and on their advise, admitted his son in the hospital of opposite parties. Opposite parties sent the complainant's son to Apollo Diagnostics, Vijayawada for getting Ultrasound scan of the total abdomen and accordingly the patient was scanned on 6.3.2004 and a detailed scan report was submitted to the doctor. THE said scan report revealed that the right kidney was affected with acute Pyelonephritic changes. THE complainant submits that the patient complained with stomach ache with previous history of removal of appendix, symptoms and the history which led the doctors to conduct the abdominal operation on 6.3.2004 from which they could find only the adhesions formed due to previous operation which is of not serious nature.

(3.) OPPOSITE parties filed their version denying the allegations in the complaint and contending that they have after careful examination of the complainant's son advised 1.X-ray of the abdomen,, 2.Ultra sound scan of abdomen, Blood examination, 4. Urine examination and the said investigations were done at private labs and the said reports revealed that the patient was suffering from Subacute intenstinal obstruction. The parents of the patient were advised that the child needs emergency operation to release the intestinal obstruction immediately, otherwise it would be dangerous to the life of the patient if the surgery is delayed. Accordingly with the consent of the parents of the patient Laparotomy was done on 7.3.2004 and it was found that intestines distended congested due to adhesion causing obstructions to the intestinal loops at the right ilias fossa with limp nodal enlargement, adhesion were released, the obstruction was released and bowels started collapsing and a lymph node was taken to conduct H.P.E. to exclude T.B. Abdomen and other causes. The patient withstood the operation and recovered well from anaesthesia within normal time. The opposite parties submit that on the same day of operation, on the request of the complainant they have handed over scan, x-ray and other reports to him and on 13.3.2004 the patient was discharged with a reference letter to Dr.Prasanth Kumar, M.Ch.. The parents of the patient consulted the said doctor who advised further tests and suggested Nephrectomy as the kidney was pyelonphretic and not functioning. The patient came back and informed the opp.parties that they were taking the patient to K.G.H., Visakhapatnam. On 23.6.2004 the complainant came to opp.party no. 1 and requested to give the summary of the case for the purpose of health insurance and informed that the boy was alright after nephrectomy . Had the opp.parties not conducted the Laparotomy to release the adhesion in the first instance, the patient would have died immediately. The complainant has deliberately suppressed the X-ray of the abdomen which discloses the diagnosis of intestinal obstruction. The opp.parties further submit that the consent letter given on 6.3.2004 by the parents and relatives of the patient clearly discloses that the opp.parties have informed them that the right kidney had phyelonephrils and the patient needs to undergo treatment for that disease. Opp.parties submit that the complaint is barred by limitation and the Dist.Forum has no jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.