Decided on October 24,2003

D.Beemeswara Rao Appellant


P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) LATE Subrahmanyeswara Rao, hereinafter called ˜the deceased is the brother of the complainant and was working as Assistant Superintendent in Hyderabad Race Club. He approached the dispensary of the first opposite party for nail prick in toe of his right leg on 27.12.1996, whereupon the O.P. -1 administered a T.T. injection. However by 28.12.1996 he presented before the first opposite party dispensary with severe pain and swelling at the site of injection of the left hand. The doctor gave him two tablets to subside the pain, but pain did not subside and during the night of 29.12.1996 the deceased complained of breathlessness and sleeplessness and got himself admitted in the second opposite party nursing home at about 2.00 a.m. on 30.12.1996. The duty doctor prescribed some medicines and the deceased was kept in the nursing home till 6.00 p.m. on that day. At that time the resident doctor advised the patient to go to speciality hospital. Accordingly, the patient was admitted in the third opposite party super speciality hospital at 7.00 p.m. and he died at 7.45 p.m. on 31.12.1996. However the thrid opposite party issued a death summary stating that the problem was diagnosed as Cellulities DM, UGI, bleed, Uraemia with septic shock.
(2.) THE complainant and his brothers approached the opposite parties for details as to the complaint, treatment given and cause of death, but they were denied of such information. Hence the complainant has issued a legal notice to the opposite parties. The first opposite party issued a reply stating that the widow of the deceased informed them not to furnish any information.
(3.) THE second opposite party refused the notice while no reply was given by the thrid opposite party. Another notice was given to the second opposite paty which also could not be served on him. This complaint is, therefore, filed claiming a sum of Rs. 15,36,000/ - alleging that the opposite parties failed to correctly diagnose the disease as well as the timely treatment due to which the complainants brother died a premature death. In the written version filed by the first opposite party it is denied that the death was due to injection administered by the doctor of the club. The deceased might have taken the injection on his own accord and his death was only due to ill -health and high blood pressure and blood sugar. The complaint is not maintainable without impleading the widow of the deceased. In fact she gave a letter stating that she has not complained with regard to the medical aid given by the first opposite party.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.