BADAM AGAIAH Vs. L. VIDYA SAGAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these two revision petitions is to the order dated 08.11.2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 422 of 2011, "Dr. L. Vidya Sagar Reddy Vs. Badam Agaiah & Ors." vide which, while partly allowing the appeal against the order dated 13.4.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Warangal in consumer complaint No. 119 of 2008, the said order was modified and the compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs awarded by the District Forum against the opposite party was reduced to Rs.1.00 lac. This single order shall dispose of both these revision petitions and a copy of the same shall be placed on each file.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complaint in question has been filed by complainant No.1/Respondent No.1-Badam Agaiah, who is husband of the deceased patient-Badam Jyothi. The complainants No.2-4/Respondent No.2-4 are the sons of the said Badam Jyothi. It has been stated that Smt. B. Jyothi, aged 46 years was suffering from fever and she was brought to the hospital of the opposite party-Dr. L. Vidya Sagar Reddy with the name Pavan Nursing Home, situated at Narsampet Village District Warangal for treatment on 26.12.2007. It is alleged that the petitioner/opposite party-Doctor told the complainants that the patient was suffering from DENGUE FEVER and he advised them to get admitted into his hospital where she remained under treatment for six days from 26.12.2007 to 31.12.2007. During this period, some tests were conducted and medicines were administered, but due to wrong conclusion and improper treatment and giving wrong medicines in a negligent manner, the condition of the patient deteriorated. The deceased went into unconscious state due to wrong treatment and improper diagnosis. The complainants requested the doctor to send her to a better hospital but the doctor refused to do so. Ultimately, when they put great pressure on the opposite party, she was referred to Rohini Hospital, Warangal on 31.12.2007. The doctors at Rohini hospital came to the conclusion that the patient was suffering from cerebral malaria. She remained under treatment in Rohini hospital from 31.12.2007 to 09.01.2008 and an expenditure of more than Rs.1.00 lac was made on her treatment. On 09.01.2008, on the advice of the doctors at Rohini hospital, the patient was to be shifted to another hospital at Hyderabad, but she died on way to the hospital. The complainants demanded through the consumer complaint that a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs should be awarded to them as damages along with interest of 18% per annum from the date of the complaint, till realization.

(3.) In the written version filed by the Dr. L. Vidya Sagar Reddy-opposite party, it was stated that the patient was first brought to his hospital on 26.12.2007, where some medicines were prescribed to her. The complainants took her back to their house on 26.12.2007, but came again on 28.12.2007 for treatment of severe fever. She was treated in the hospital of the opposite party from 28.12.2007 to 31.12.2007. The opposite party conducted the necessary tests and administered medicines as per the required condition of the patient. The opposite party denied that there was any improper treatment or wrong medicines given to the patient. The opposite party also denied that the complainants made any demand that she should be taken to a better hospital, or that the said demand was not accepted by the opposite party. In fact, the opposite party had advised the patient on 28.12.2007 itself to go to a higher centre, but the patient and her son Praveen-complainant No.2, insisted that treatment should be given to them in the hospital of the opposite party only. The opposite party on clinical examination and based on the reports, suspected viral infections and mentioned it as suspected case of DENGUE FEVER as during the period September, 2006 to January, 2007, there were many cases of DENGUE FEVER in Andhra Pradesh. The opposite party has stated that he only mentioned it to be a suspected case of DENGUE as a precautionary step but it does not establish that he had given treatment for suspected DENGUE FEVER. In fact, the patient had a long history of hypertension and diabetes mellitus and heart disease. The opposite party tried his best to give her proper treatment and hence there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.