NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KOLLAREDDY MOTILAL REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order in C.D. No. 78/1996 on the file of District Forum, Machilipatnam, opposite party No. 2 preferred F.A. 204/2004 and F.A. 505/2005 has been preferred by opposite party No. 1 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. Since both these appeals arise out of same complaint they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the case are that since the complainant s daughter Ms. Madhavi aged about 15 years was suffering from throat pain, the complainant took her to opposite party No. 1 doctor on 10.6.1996 and on examination, opposite party No. 1 doctor prescribed some medicines stating that the patient was suffering from tonsils. Again on 26.6.1996 the complainant got her daughter tested in opposite party No. 1 hospital wherein various tests were conducted on the patient and the opposite party No. 1 fixed the date for conducting operation on 28.6.1996. Accordingly, the complainant had taken the patient to opposite party No. 1 hospital on 28.6.1996. It is submitted by the complainant that without the assistance of Anaesthetist, opposite party No. 1 conducted the operation at 9.00 a.m. At about 10.30 a.m. a staff nurse informed the complainant that the condition of the patient was serious and as per the advice of opposite party No. 1 doctor the patient was shifted to Vijyawada Nursing Home and Poly Clinic where they declared her brought dead. opposite party No. 1 who accompanied the patient left the hospital without giving proper reply to the complainant. Hence this complaint seeking appropriate relief.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed counter admitting that the operation was conducted on 28.6.1996 by taking all necessary precautions and by giving local anaesthesia for which he is competent and that the operation was completed normally. After the operation, the patient suddenly collapsed due to pulmonary and cardiac arrest. Resuscitation measures were taken but the patient did not recover consciousness. Therefore, the patient was shifted to Vijayawada for better treatment and since the assistance of Anaesthetist was not available in Gudivada at the relevant time. It is contended by opposite party No. 1 that he attended the operation with requisite reasonable care and professional skill and there is no negligence on his behalf in conducting the operation. It is prayed to dismiss the complaint.