VARANASI SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. G.RAVI KUMAR
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-2-24
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 27,2003

Varanasi Subrahmanyam Appellant
VERSUS
G.RAVI KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE daughter of the complainant Miss V. L. Sumalatha aged about 17 years studying in Second Year, I.T.I. complained of pain in her stomach on 4.3.1994. When she was taken to the first opposite party doctor he gave some tablets and sent her home. She took the first dose on the evening of same day and after taking second dose on 5.3.1994 at about 9.00 a.m., she complained unbearable pain in the stomach and suffered acute perspiration followed by vomitting. As she was feeling restlessness she was again taken to first opposite party who advised rest and prescribed some other tablets but as the pain became unbearable her mother took her in the evening again to first opposite party who administered different medicine and put her on saline. As there was some relief after few hours the patient was discharged to go home. However, again on the morning of 6.3.1994 the girl woke up from the bed with agonizing pain in the abdomen she felt restlessness and vomitted once again. Her mother again took her to first opposite party for further treatment who changed the course of medicine and administered saline once again. Though the complainant expressed his readiness to take his daughter to a better hospital the first opposite party assured him that there was no threat to her life. After administering two more saline bottles he advised them to go home. In the morning on 7.3.1994 the girl vomitted after taking a cup of milk. She was taken to first opposite party who again administered saline and assured that everything would be normal if she is kept under his treatment for two or three days. Hence, she continued as in -patient in his hospital. However, at about 3.00 p.m. the Nursing Home staff advised the complainant that the condition of the patient was critical and could not be managed by them in the absence of first opposite party who left for Vijayawada. Hence, the complainant shifted her to second opposite party Nursing Home who immediately admitted her as in -patient, started treatment, administered the medicine such as saline, injections, etc.
(2.) HE not only gave Compose injection and thereafter Largactil and left the clinic at about 5.30 p.m. for Kalidindi where he has a Branch Nursing Home. At about 8.00 p.m. Nursing Home staff of second opposite party declared that there was no pulse and the girl was dead. Complainant issued a registered notice to both the opposite parties on 16.4.1994 for which second opposite party alone replied with contentious allegations. Hence this complaint is filed attributing medical negligence on the part of both the opposite parties claiming a compensation of Rs. 6.00 lakhs and costs of Rs.5,000/ -.
(3.) IN the written version filed by the first opposite party while admitting that the complainant's daughter was treated by him stated that the girl was treated as out -patient for complaint of burning sensation with pain in abdomen and hence he suspected that she might have been down with Gastritis. He suggested IV Fluids. There was improvement in her general condition. He had also infused injection Perinorm, a safe drug. As the patient had shown physical signs of improvement all along after infusion of IV Fluids he left for Vijayawada to attend to a pressing personal work. When the patient was suspected of Gastritis, IV Fluids were infused since the patient had not complained of any headache or reeling sensation or lose of vision, suspicion of any cerebral injury does not arise. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on his part. In the separate written version filed by second opposite party it is stated that he is a Surgeon who is having a Nursing Home at Kaikaluru and a Branch at Kalidindi. On 7.3.1994 at about 4.00 p.m. the complainant came to his house and requested him to see his daughter who was in an unconscious state and she was brought to his Nursing Home as Dr. Ravi Kumar, who had treated hitherto went out of station. Second opposite party refused to admit as he would not attend the cases coming from other hospitals without knowing the -details and line of treatment adopted. However, on humanitarian grounds he came to his hospital and found the girl in an unconscious state. He gave IV Fluids to improve her general condition. However, after sometime the patient developed convulsions whereupon he gave Compose injection. Afterwards the patient developed vomitting 9 and he had administered Largactil injection. From these symptoms, he suspected that it was a case of Encephalitis, explained the condition of the patient to the complainant and advised them to shift the patient immediately who agreed to shift his daughter after arranging conveyance. At about 5.00 p.m. he left for Kalidindi to attend to the work at his Branch Nursing Home and by the time he returned at about 8.30 p.m. his staff informed him that the complainant had taken his daughter at 5.30 p.m. Kaikaluru is a Panchayat where there are no advanced medical facilities like C.T. Scanning or Ceritro Spiral Fluid(CSF) analysis. Therefore, there is no negligence on his Complainant filed Exs. Al to A8 while examining himself as P. W. 2 and his wife as P. W. 1 First opposite party was examined himself as R. W. 2 while the second opposite party was examined himself as R. W. 1 besides filing Exs. B1 to B3. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is any negligence on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, to what relief?;


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