ROUTH RAHESWARI Vs. UPPALAPATI VENUGOPALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by one Routh Raheswari (herein after referred to as Petitioner), who was aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, which had dismissed the appeal alleging medical negligence on the part of Dr U Venugopala Rao (hereinafter referred to as Respondent).

(2.) The Petitioner who was the original complainant before the District Forum has stated that she had been suffering from stomach pain for the past one year and she used to go to the Respondent s Nursing Home for treatment. In March 2003, she was advised that she required a hysterectomy operation to cure the pain. After charging Rs.3000/- from the Petitioner she was admitted to the Respondent s Nursing Home where without proper diagnosis, clinical examination and procedure she underwent surgery on 21.03.2003, which is a major operation. On 25.03.2003 she developed vaginal and lung infection. When her condition deteriorated, a day later she was shifted to the Nagarjuna Hospital which being a multi-specialty hospital had better medical facilities. The Respondent assured that he would bear all the expenses of her treatment as the present complication arose due to his fault. The Respondent however, did not come forward for her treatment, for which the Petitioner was charged Rs.30,000/-. Once the Petitioner s condition stabilized she was advised to get readmitted in the Respondent s Nursing Home for recuperation, but the Respondent refused to re-admit her and therefore, she took admission in another hospital. The Petitioner has further stated that because of medical negligence on the part of the Respondent, she has been suffering both financially and physically and she still continues to have serious physical disabilities. In view of this, the Petitioner approached the Additional District and Sessions Judge who referred her complaint to the District Forum, where she sought compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

(3.) The Respondent denied the above allegations and stated that it was only after proper diagnosis and clinical investigation including blood and urine test that the hysterectomy was performed. The operation theatre was properly equipped and the operation was conducted by qualified doctors including an anesthesist. Despite best possible medical care the Petitioner did develop vaginal and lung infection and the Respondent personally took her and admitted her to Nagarjuna multi-specialty Hospital for treatment. Respondent also got her 30% concession on the charges from that Hospital. It is incorrect to state that the Respondent refused to readmit her in his Nursing Home. In fact, the Petitioner never came back to the Respondent after her discharge from the Multi-specialty hospital.