B.ASHOK KUMAR Vs. KAMMA NARASIMHA SWAMY
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-2-10
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 21,2003

B.Ashok Kumar Appellant
VERSUS
Kamma Narasimha Swamy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

C.P.SURESH,MEMBER - (1.) THE unsuccessful first opposite party in O.P. No. 639/1994 on the file of the District Forum, East Godavari at Kakinada, is the appellant before this Commission.
(2.) THE facts in brief are, the complainant on the assurance and the undertaking given by the first opposite party that the disease Elephantiasis can be cured by surgery, joined the hospital of the first opposite party on 18.9.1992, was operated upon by the second opposite party on 20.9.1992, and was discharged on 5.10.1992 by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 11,090/ -. Even after the operation there is no improvement. The complainant was advised to go to Bombay for further treatment, if he really wants the disease to be cured. The first opposite party has thus misled the complainant, made him to join the hospital and undergo surgery and ultimately advised him to go to Bombay which amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service. The complainant is frequently getting pain and suffering from side effects. He claimed for refund of expenses incurred i.e., Rs. 11,090/ -, Rs. 25,000/ - for mental agony, Rs. 25,000/ - towards permanent disability, and Rs. 3,000/ - towards costs.
(3.) THE first opposite party filed his written version admitting that the complainant was admitted in his Nursing Home voluntarily but he has not assured of any 100 per cent cure. He further stated that the surgery was conducted by Dr. Mohan Krishna, an expert in Plastic Surgery, and that the complainant has failed to follow the instructions given by the Surgeon after the operation. Opposite party No. 2, the Plastic Surgeon, was impleaded later on and he filed his written version stating that the right foot of the complainant was grossly swollen with warty growth of nodules, and there was inter nodules discharge with foul smell indicating secondary infection and there is likelihood of death of the patient with septicemia and that he adopted the procedure known as œCharles Procedure  in conducting the operation and advised the complainant to wear pressure elastic support stocking in the form of pressure elastic bandage and tubigrip socks, but the complainant failed to wear elastic support stocking which is a must and that there was no negligence on his part.;


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