S R RANGANATDHAN Vs. ALLURI SEETHARAMA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.R.Ranganadhan, defendant in O.S.No.80/87 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam preferred this Appeal being aggrieved of the decree and judgment dated 3-9-1993 made in the said suit. Likewise Alluri Seetharama Raju, respondent in the Appeal, as plaintiff in the suit, instituted the aforesaid suit claiming damages to a tune of Rs.3 lakhs towards expenditure incurred for medicines, operation, loss of business, loss of education of children, loss of health, mental suffering and agony, future loss on account of leaving surgical sutures in the plaintiff's abdomen by the appellant/defendant/Doctor who had operated the plaintiff on 14-2-1983 and for recovery of subsequent interest and for costs of the suit. The learned Judge, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, Having settled the Issues, recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, D.W.1 to D.W.3, marked Exs.A-1 to A-66 and Ex.B-1 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondent herein/plaintiff in the suit is entitled to claim damages of Rs.1694-65 ps. towards medical expenses and also an amount of Rs.65,000/- and the relief prayed for in relation to the rest of the claims had been negatived. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred the Appeal and the plaintiff also aggrieved by the judgment and decree negativing a portion of the relief, preferred Cross Objections limiting the claim to Rs. 1,13,305/-.

(2.) Contentions of Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy: Sri D.V. Sitharam Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/defendant would maintain that several of the bills relied upon relate to pre-operation period and only a few bills relate to post-operation period. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and would contend that absolutely no acceptable evidence was placed before the Court relating to the other aspects and hence taking into consideration all the aspects, limited relief was granted. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the limited relief also could not have been granted since absolutely there was no negligence on the part of the appeilant/defendant/Doctor as such. The Counsel had taken this Court through the relevant portion of the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Judge. The Counsel also while further elaborating his submissions had pointed out that here is a case where the suit is clearly barred by limitation. The learned Counsel pointed out to the relevant dates and would submit that even if the date is reckoned from the date of either first operation or the second operation, the same is clearly barred by limitation and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone and the Appeal to be allowed. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions.

(3.) Contentions of Sri Anand: Sri Anand, the learned Counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff who also filed Cross Objections made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would point out that the fact that some foreign element had been left in the abdomen at the time of operation and the fact that it was due to the negligence of either the appellant/def endant/Doctor or those who had assisted him, these facts are not in serious controversy. The learned Counsel also would submit that while evaluating the damages to be granted, the learned Judge had not adopted the proper approach. The evidence available on record had not been appreciated in proper perspective and hence the Cross Objections may have to be allowed and the amount already granted by the learned Judge to be enhanced as prayed for in the Cross Objections. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions, especially in relation to the medical negligence.