V. UMA LAKSHMI Vs. MAPATHULA VENKATA SATAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dtd. 15/12/2020 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh in First Appeal No. 513/2015, vide which the Cross Appeals filed by both the parties were dismissed and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was affirmed.

(2.) The factual background, in brief, is that the deceased Complainant No. 1, a housewife, experienced pain in her right breast in 2011. Seeking treatment, she consulted the Petitioner on 10/1/2011, who, after clinical examination, prescribed medication and advised her to undergo a pathological test for diagnosis. Following the prescribed course, she underwent a mammography test at Sree C.T. Scanning Centre, the results of which were shared with the Petitioner. Despite subsequent medication, the pain persisted, leading the Petitioner to recommend surgery to remove the lump in the right breast. Consequently, on 11/5/2011, the Complainant underwent surgery to remove the lump, with a piece sent for biopsy to Neo Diagnostic Centre, Rajahmundry. Post-surgery, she followed the Petitioner's instructions for care. However, as the pain persisted, she sought further consultation at G.S.L. Cancer Hospital, as per the Petitioner's referral. The biopsy report revealed infiltrative duct cell carcinoma, with the tumor deemed inoperable due to its growth. Subsequently, at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, her right breast was surgically removed. It was only post-surgery, upon consultation with doctors at NIMS Hospital and GSL Hospital, that she realized the alleged improper treatment by the Petitioner. The issue of cancer was initially indicated in the report dtd. 27/1/2011 from Sree CT Scanning Centre, suggesting negligence on the part of the Petitioner. Subsequent treatments included weekly chemotherapy at NIMS Hospital and radiotherapy at GSL Cancer Hospital, Rajahmundry, resulting in side effects such as hair loss and loss of appetite, impacting her ability to care for her family. A Legal Notice dtd. 12/9/2011 was issued to the Petitioner, demanding damages of Rs.10,00,000.00, to which Reply was received that she had properly adhered to the investigation procedures. Dissatisfied with the alleged negligence, the Complainant and her family filed their Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Rajahmundry.

(3.) The District Forum vide its Order dtd. 19/5/2015 allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainants the amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 towards compensation, Rs.1,00,000.00 towards mental agony and Rs.5,000.00 towards litigation costs. The Petitioner and the Respondents filed Cross Appeals before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dtd. 15/12/2020 dismissed both the Appeals, and upheld the Order of the District Forum.