KHASAB KOYAKLKAR Vs. R. VENKATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the order passed by the District Forum-Nizamabad in C.D.No.114 of 2001 whereby the complainant filed F.A.No.1644 of 2006 and the opposite party no.1 filed F.A.No.608 of 2007 assailing the impugned order.

(2.) F.A.No.608 of 2007 is taken as the leading case wherein the facts as represented by the parties are that on 15.9.2001 the husband of the complainant due to ill health was taken to the opposite party no.1 hospital. Even though the opposite partyno.1 treated him for three days failed to diagnose the disease he referred the patient to the opposite party no.2 hospital. The complainant admitted her husband in the opposite party no.2 hospital for treatment and she had paid Rs.35,000/- towards the expenditure for treatment of her husband. On 19.9.2001 the doctors at opposite party no.2 hospital informed the complainant that her husbands health had improved to some extent and collected an amount of Rs.10,000/- as also demanded the complainant on 21.9.2001 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- which the complainant had paid by selling her gold ornaments and also by borrowing the amount from others. At 7 p.m. on the same day i.e., 21.9.2001 the doctors in opposite party no.2 hospital informed the complainant that her husband would not survive and asked her to take him her home. At 9.30 p.m. the complainant had taken the dead body of her husband from the opposite party no.2 hospital to their house at Kamareddy. The complainant had claimed that due to negligence shown by the doctors, the opposite party no.1 and the doctors at the hospital of the opposite party no.2 in treating her husband consequently to which he lost his life for treatment of whom the complainant had incurred heavy expenditure. The only source of livelihood of the complainants family was deprived of his right by the negligent treatment of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. The opposite party no.1 had misrepresented by prescribing the medicine on a letter pad that he is an MD, specialist in neurology and cardiology. The complainant claimed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and sought for a direction to the opposite party no.2 to return deposit amount of Rs.65,000/-.

(3.) The opposite parties resisted the claim of the complainant. The opposite party no.2 has filed and the opposite party no.1 has adopted the counter filed by the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has contended that the complainant has stated in her affidavit that her husband was treated by Dr.K.Bhumareddy specialist in Asthama, Allergy and Chest diseases at Nizamabad and she has not mentioned these facts in the complaint. Dr.Bhumareddy is not made a party to the proceedings. On 17.9.2001 at 2 p.m. the complainants husband was admitted in the hospital of the opposite party no.2 and at that time Dr.Amit Kumar Sinha, Neuorphysician, informed the relatives of the patient that the patients conditions was serious and he advised for necessary treatment. The patient was kept on artificial ventilator in the ICU of the hospital. All the necessary tests and X-ray were taken as per advise of the doctors. A cardiologist, Dr.Srinath and Chest Physician Dr.E.Prasad were called to attend to the patient. During the stay of the patient in the hospital of the opposite partyno.2 necessary tests were conducted and medicines were given. Necessary bills were also issued whereby reasonable and competitive charges were collected from the relatives of the patient. The police had examined Dr.Amit Kumar Singh on 21.11.2001. No action was taken by the police against the opposite party no.2 and closed the case long ago. The High Court of A.P. in writ petition No.22224 of 2001 issued direction for the case to be referred to the medical council. The complainant has filed the complaint with malafide intention to gain money unlawfully. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.