KALPANA W/O A RAMESH Vs. K RAMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this case of alleged medical negligence is to the order passed on 30.12.2013 by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in FA No. 322/2012, "Dr. C. Niranjan Reddy versus Smt. A. Kalpana & Anr." and FA No. 323/2012, "Dr. Smt. K. Ramalakshmi versus Smt. A. Kalpana & Anr.", vide which the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Chittoor on 2.05.2012 in consumer complaint No. 07/2011, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and consequently, the complaint filed by the present petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner/complainant in CC No. 7/2011 are that her husband got her admitted on 02.05.2008 in the hospital of Opposite Party 1, Dr. Ramalakshmi for medical termination of pregnancy as well as tubectomy family planning operation. As stated in the complaint, the surgery was performed by OP-2 Dr. Niranjan Reddy in the said hospital on 02.05.2008 itself. However, after the surgery, the petitioner/complainant developed complications like abdominal pain, vomiting, abdominal bleeding etc. On 04.05.2008, OP-1 referred the complainant to Christian Medical College and Hospital (CMC), Vellore by giving a letter dated 04.05.2008. The complainant was admitted in the said hospital on 05.05.2008 and had to remain there for a considerable time during which she had to be admitted in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) as well and to undergo four operations on different dates for rectifying the defects that had occurred during the surgery at the OP Hospital. The Doctors at CMC Vellore performed the operations of "LAPAROTOMY PROCEED CLOSURE TERMINAL ILEAL PERFORATION AND TOILETTING UNDER GENERAL ANESTHESIA" 'with diagnosis of "UTERINE AND TERMINAL ILEAL PERFORATION WITH FECAL PERITONITIS VOCAL CARD PALSY WITH RECURRENT ASPIRATION". After the operation, the patient was shifted for post-operative ventilation and monitoring in the ICU. Later on, some more surgeries were conducted upon her and she was finally discharged on 11.09.2008. The complainant alleged that she had spent a sum of ?15 lakh towards hospitalisation, medicine etc. and ? 1 lakh towards other expenses and ? 2 lakh towards extra nourishment. Alleging medical deficiency against the OP Doctors, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum on 08.09.2010.

(3.) The complaint was contested through the written version filed by Dr. Ramalakshmi, OP-1, in which she stated that the operation was performed upon the complainant by her and not by OP-2 Dr. Niranjan Reddy. She denied that the patient suffered complications involving vomiting, abdomen bleeding etc. after the operation. She admitted, however, that on 04.05.2008, she referred the complainant to CMC Hospital, Vellore by giving a letter dated 04.05.2008. She stated that if any patient develops complications after the tubectomy operation, he / she has to be referred to higher institutions. In this case, the OP advised the complainant to go to Government SVRR (Ruya) Hospital, Tirupati, where her problem could have been rectified free of cost. However, the complainant and her husband insisted that a referral letter should be given in favour of CMC Hospital, Vellore. The OPs provided care to the complainant at CMC Hospital, Vellore as well, and OP-2 visited CMC Hospital, Vellore several times to see the complainant and inquire about her health condition regularly. The OP-1 also stated that the complaint was barred by limitation because the date of cause of action should be taken as 02.05.2008, whereas the complaint was made on 06.09.2010, meaning thereby that it is filed beyond the expiry of two years from the cause of action. The OP-1 has further taken the plea that the tubectomy operation was conducted free of cost by the OPs in a Government recognised nursing home and hence, the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer. The District Forum Chittoor, taking into account the evidence produced by the parties, ordered that both OPs are guilty of medical negligence and are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 14,13,100/- to the complainant within 15 days, otherwise the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. Appeals were filed against the order of the District Forum by OP-1 as well as OP-2 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned order accepted both the appeals and set aside the order of the District Forum. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.