DEVI RANI Vs. N PRAKASH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant had a mild fever and so she visited the clinic of the first opposite party, hereinafter called as 'doctor' for treatment on 9.10.1987, who advised her to take two tablets of "amalar". After taking the tablets the complainant had a swollen body and in some parts of the body she had visible signs of Ammavaru (rashness like chicken pox ). The complainant requested the doctor to attend on her at her residence but the latter flatly refused. When the complainant's husband went again the Doctor advised a tablet of Cibexinio and Glycerine bottle. The complainant accordingly took the tablets and after some time she also applied Glycerine as suggested by the doctor, but instead of cure the complainant had high swollen body figure and there were rashes and scratches on the body. After taking Amalar tablets the complainant had filthy/bad odour from her mouth and also from the nose. The doctor due to his sheer negligence prescribed Amalar tablets which resulted in the loss of eyesight. It is confirmed on examination by a renowned Opthamologist, Dr. P. Siva Reddy with Pathological test. The action of the doctor resulted in snatching away the eye-sight of the complainant. The complainant also had taken further medical advice from L. V. Prasad Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, who also confirmed that she lost her eye-sight completely and there are no chances of any repair to the retina. The complainant who is just 32 years old thus became helpless with five minor children out of them four are daughters. She had to daily spend an amount of Rs.150/- towards medical expenses like tablets, eye drops, etc. The complainant issued a legal notice on 30.10.1993 to the doctor calling upon him to pay Rs.12 lakhs with interest for which a contentious reply was given. Hence, the complaint.

(2.) The first opposite party in his counter-affidavit stated that the complainant visited him on 9.10.1987 for treatment of Malaria and on 10.10.1987 with burning sensation of tongue and general weakness. Her husband visited him on 13.10.1987 and thereafter they never turned up for any treatment. It is further stated that inasmuch as the manufacture of the drug 'amalar' i. e. , M/s. Brown and Burk Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, 93, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Hosur, Tamil Nadu, is not added as a party the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. No fee was also charged by him by way of consideration.

(3.) After examining the patient he noticed the symptoms of Malaria and hence he prescribed standard drug (two tablets of Amalar ). The drug Amalar is a combination of Sulphadoxine and Pyrimethmine which is commonly used drug in the therapy of Malaria. On inquiry the complainant informed him that she is not allergic to any drug. So he prescribed the said drug. The complainant visited his clinic on 10.10.1987 with a further complaint of burning sensation of tongue and general weakness. There were no signs of drug reaction. Hence, he prescribed cebexin multivitamin tablet and Glycerine bottle for burning sensation of the tongue. Thereafter the complainant did not turn up. However, on 13.10.1987 the complainant's husband came back and reported that she developed Ammavaru. Though he asked him to bring the complainant immediately to his clinic for examination, the latter requested him to prescribe a suitable drug. Hence, he prescribed a soothing agent Anethical Lotion. Inspite of his direction to bring the complainant immediately he did not do so. He also denied that any request was made for house visit. He has diligently prescribed standard drug for Malaria. There is no recklessness or deficiency in service on his part. The complainant might have used some other drug for body pain, fever or cough which are commonly sold in the counter in medical shops.