ANUMALLA SATYANARAYANA Vs. K SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by opposite party Dr. Anumalla Satyanarayana aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.1997 in O. P. No.287/ 1994 on the file of the District Forum, Nizamabad directing him to pay to Sri K. Shankar, respondent/complainant, Rs.18,000/- towards medical expenses incurredby him and Rs.30,000/- towards damages for his permanent disability (amputation of right leg) and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Parties are referred to as in the O. P.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows : The complainant was suffering from pain in the right leg below knee due to exertion. As such he approached the opposite party for treatment on 2.7.1994. After examining he was admitted by the opposite party in his nursing home for 6 days but as the condition went on deteriorating, he on his own left the nursing home, went to Hyderabad and was admitted in Apollo Hospital on 8.7.1994. After the investigations, doctors at Apollo Hospital diagnosed that gangrene had settled in his right leg and it had to be amputed upto thigh level immediately as it was a danger to his life, on the consent of the complainant his right leg was amputated upto thigh i. e. just above the knee. On 9.7.1994. After treatment he was discharged from hospital on 13.7.1994. After return, he lodged a complaint with the District Forum on 26.9.1994 accusing the opposite party for not treating him properly and attributing negligence in not preventing gangrene by proper treatment at an early stage so that his leg would not have been amputated.

(3.) The opposite party in his counter disputed the claim and said that the complainant did not come under the definition of 'consumer' under Sec.2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence the complaint should be dismissed. He also mentioned that he treated the complainant without charging any fee as he was brought by one Jagadeshwar, who worked in the medical shop on his premises. He stated that the complainant had pain in his right leg for the last four years and it had aggravated since last 45 days. The opposite party treated the patient only as out-patient and gave prescription free of cost on humanitarian grounds. When the complainant came to him on 2.7.1994, he was advised by opposite party to stop smoking and drinking and was explained the details of the prognosis of his case and was cautioned that unless he followed the treatment scrupulously he would lose his right leg. On 4.7.1994 the complainant came again and the opposite party prescribed him anti-diabetic drugs and also diet control so that his blood sugar could be controlled. The complainant was told that his restricted diet should not include rice, sugar, sweets, fruits, etc. After three days on 7.7.1994 the complainant got his urine examined. There was 1% sugar in the urine and on enquiry the opposite party learnt that the complainant was not able to stop smoking or drinking as advised and that he was not following the advise of his doctor which amounted to negligence on his part. On this visit the complainant did not report any aggravation of pain and therefore the opposite party concluded that the medicines prescribed by him were effective. He denied that the complainant was ever admitted as in-patient in "satyasai Orthopaedic Nursing Home" which was run by him. He also stated that the doctors of Apollo Hospital did not mention that gangrene developed due to improper treatment during the last 6 days i. e. from 2.7.1994 to 7.7.1994. He refuted the charge that the leg had to be amputated due to his negligence and improper treatment by him. Gangrene would have developed if the complainant had neglected to follow the medical advise as given by him and about which he had already warned. He also denied that the complainant was earning Rs.3,000/- per month through his business of selling goats and sheep and working as butcher. Since the complainant did not loose his leg due to his negligence, he was in no way responsible for the complainant's disability or loss of income and therefore the complainant was not entitled to any compensation from him. The medicines prescribed by him were to halt the progress of the disease. There could be many reasons for gangrene developing and once it starts it could spread within hours.