VUDUMULA LEELAKUMARI Vs. M.RAVINDRA
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-9-3
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 16,2003

VUDUMULA LEELAKUMARI Appellant
VERSUS
M.Ravindra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE first complainant is the mother and the complainants 2 and 3 are her children. The first complainant, hereinafter called ˜the deceased consulted the opposite party, hereinafter called ˜the doctor during the first week of August, 1996 for a complaint of bleeding. On the advice of the doctor, she underwent Hysterectomy operation on 10.8.1996. Later on 11.8.1996, the doctor sent the specimen for Biopsy test at Guntur through her husband. M/s. Govardhan Diagnostic Private Limited, Guntur, issued the Biopsy report dated 14.8.1996, which revealed ˜Cervix Invasive, Large cell, Keratinising Squamous Cell Carcinoma. After perusing the report, the doctor informed her that it is a case of cancer and advised her to go to Hyderabad or Bangalore for cancer treatment. Accordingly, the deceased came to Hyderabad and visited M.N.J. Cancer Hospital on 26.8.1996, where Ultra -sonography, X -ray, Cytology and other tests were conducted. She underwent radiation therapy from 28.8.1996 to 30.8.1996. The doctors at M.N.J. Cancer Hospital wanted to know what was the treatment given by the opposite party doctor, upon which, the latter gave a reference letter stating that he did not find anything except the growth at cervix and that is why he performed the operation. After 10 months of radiation, the deceased developed swelling at the operated scar of abdomen. She visited M.N.J. Cancer Hospital again on 4.9.1997 and ultrasonography test was done. On 26.9.1997, Cytology test was conducted at Medinova, Hyderabad.
(2.) THE deceased visited Dr. Ravi Babu at Guntur on 22.10.1997. Culture, blood and scanning tests were conducted. In the biopsy test at Guntur on 2.11.1997, it was confirmed that the swelling on her abdomen is due to cancer gland. She, therefore, visited the M.N.J. Institute, Hyderabad again on 26.11.1997, where she was advised to undergo treatment for cancer. While the Chemotherapy treatment was going on, she was informed on 19.3.1998 that there would not be any use of further course of Chemotherapy and prescribed some tablets as the deceased reached cancer phase -IV for which there was no cure.
(3.) THE opposite party committed a mistake in diagnosing the disease. Without conducting any test, in a hasty manner he performed Hysterectomy. He came to know for the first time that it is a case of cancer, only after sending the specimen for biopsy test after the surgery. Cervix is the lower part of uterus, which can be seen through vagina by speculum (instrument). Cervix can be palpated with fingers and the nature of growth can be suspected. Biopsy of cervix is a simple out -patient procedure. Hence the opposite party committed a mistake by taking recourse for surgery without properly diagnosing the type of growth. Stage -I cervix cancer can be cured with surgery or by radiation treatment and if treated properly, the patient can lead normal life. The opposite party used some instruments which contaminated with cancer cells to close the abdominal muscles and tissues. Recurrence of cancer in abdominal wall is due to negligence of the doctor who performed Hysterectomy operation.;


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