B.SAILOO Vs. SUPERINTENDENT, OSMANIA HOSPITAL
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Superintendent, Osmania Hospital
Click here to view full judgement.
P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT -
(1.) THE complainant, a
driver in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter called
Corporation, approached the Corporation Hospital at Nalgonda as he
developed pain in his right jaw. He was referred to Tarnaka Hospital
(second opposite party hospital) on 6.7.1995, where his teeth was removed
but the pain did not subside and hence he approached the third opposite
party. He was again referred to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences and
later he was advised to go to Osmania General Hospital (first opposite
party) so that there may not be much financial burden to the Corporation.
Accordingly he was admitted in the first opposite party hospital on
24.3.1995 where he was diagnosed to be having C.P. Angle Acoustic Neurosis and operated in sub -oscipital craniatory. But due to the
negligence of the first opposite party hospital in not conducting proper
post operative care he lost his sensitivity of right jaw and also vision
in the right eye. Though the complainant informed about the problems, the
first opposite party hospital discharged him on 21.7.1995 as if
everything was alright including operation. A certificate was issued by
the Civil Surgeon stating that the complainant is unfit for the post of
driver. Basing on the certificate the Depot Manager requested the second
opposite party to examine him again and advise him to appear before the
Medical Board. However, the Medical Board issued a fitness certificate,
on examining him, for the post of cleaner on 12.1.1996. The doctors
failed to inform him the post operative care he should take, and the
consequences which he will have to face, in case he does not follow those
instructions. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties. As he lost his livelihood he claimed compensation of
Rs. 6 lakhs together with interest at 18 per cent per annum and costs.
(2.) IN the written version filed by the first opposite party it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer and as there is no
consideration paid by him the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction. That
apart at the time of discharge after surgery he was advised to see the
Eye Surgeon to take care of tarsorrphy. The biopsy report of excised
tumour (No. 885/1995) was consistent with Neurinoma. The loss of sense
over jaw is a known complication in post operative period as the tumour
excised was in close proximty to V, VII to X cranial nerves. In view of
the giant size of the tumour occupying C.P. Angle the patients are likely
to have loss of function in any of the cranial nerves during post
operative period. Therefore, there is no negligence on their part.
(3.) THE opposite parties 2 and 3 also filed written version denying any deficiency in service on their part.
The complainant filed Exs. A -1 to A -16 besides filing his affidavit and also the affidavit of one B. Dayanand Reddy who is also
working as driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. The first opposite party filed
affidavit of Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital and marked Exs. B -1
to B -3. O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 filed the affidavit of Law Officer of
A.P.S.R.T.C. and marked Exs. B -4 to B -10.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.