DR. B. RAMA CHANDRAIAH, Vs. P. LALITHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 2.8.2011, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in two cross appeals F.A. No.789/2008 and F.A. No. 792/2008 between the parties, vide which, while dismissing both the appeals, the impugned order dated 15.5.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kadapa in Consumer Complaint No. 83/2007, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent, P. Lalithamma fell down in her house, during the intervening night of 29.8.2006 and 30.8.2006, while on her way to the bathroom. She complained of pain in the right leg at the thigh position. She was taken to the Nursing Home of the OP doctor on 30.8.2006 morning, where after examination, she was advised to undergo surgery. The said surgery was conducted by the OP Doctor on 31.8.2006 near thigh portion of her right leg. The version of the complainant is that following the surgery, she had shooting pain at the operation spot and her condition did not improve despite the treatment given by the OP doctor, who finally advised her on 14.9.2006 to go to some higher Institution. The husband of the complainant took her to BIRRD Institution at Tirupati in the first instance. Subsequently, she was taken to Kamineni Wokhardt Hospital, Hyderabad and finally to the KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad and admitted there on 17.12.2006. She was treated for hemiarthoplasty right hip from 17.12.2006 to 22.12.2006. According to the complainant, the doctor at KIMS Hospital told her that the surgery done at the OP hospital was an utter failure. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP doctor to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for the expense incurred for recovery, Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation for mental agony etc. and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost.

(3.) In their written reply filed before the District Forum, the opposite party stated that the surgery was done with proper and due care with the assistance of three more doctors. There was no negligence on their part in treating the patient during surgery and post-operative care. The patient got recovered and discharged from the hospital on 14.9.2006 with an advice to continue prescribed medicine for three months and come for review after one month, but the complainant did not turn up for review. The OP doctor also stated that the husband of the complainant was a practising Advocate at Kadapa and he got his elbow surgery done from him seven years back, but till date, he had not paid their bills. The present consumer complaint had been filed to evade payment of those bills. The OP also replied that the discharge summary issued by the KIMS Hospital does not speak about any negligence on the part of the OP. it only describes Hemiarthoplasty right hip (loosening AMP in situ), but does not disclose the reasons which caused such loosening. The OP stated that there was no negligence on their part in treating the patient and hence, the complaint should be dismissed with costs.