B.SAILOO Vs. SUPERINTENDENT, OSMANIA HOSPITAL
LAWS(APCDRC)-2003-2-18
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 26,2003

B.Sailoo Appellant
VERSUS
Superintendent, Osmania Hospital Respondents

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.;


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