DESHAPANDE RAGHAVENDRA RAO MAHABOOBNAGAR Vs. C.D.R.HOSPITALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum seeking the entire relief as prayed by him in the complaint.

(2.) The facts of the case stated briefly are as follows:

(3.) According to the complainant, he fell down from an easy chair at Sangareddy at his friends house and developed pain in the left hand arm on 2-7-2002 (sic 2001). Immediately he was admitted in a local nursing home and took treatment. As the pain was unbearable on the same day he was taken to the opposite party hospital where he admitted himself for further treatment. According to him, he was treated with plaster of paris on the left hand and slowly his entire palm became black. He developed further complications then he complained that he was suddenly discharged on 6-7-2001 with incomplete treatment. The discharge report on the other hand stated that there was immediate relief, the left swelling hematoma was under local anaesthesia etc., After discharge he went to the house of his relatives with the belief that the pain subsided; but soon the pain increased and he was sleepless that night. On 7-7-2001 the complainant came to the hospital and again met Dr.Gopala Ra, Neurophysician who treated him earlier and an emergency Doppler study was done. In pursuance thereof the doctors discussed among themselves and the complainant was referred to Nizams Medical Sciences. The opposite party failed to identify the disease as embolism though they conducted many tests. Had the opposite party identified it, they could have conducted embolectomy operation on the very day itself and his left hand would have been saved. On the other hand, he was treated at NIMS till 15-7-2001 as he was diagnosed as suffering from UL ischemia but as his pain not reduced, he appeared to have contacted NIMS again on 19-7-2001 and the doctors after examination, recommended amputation of his left hand. On 27-7-2001 his left hand was amputated and he was discharged on 1-8-2001. Thus it was his case that the initial mishandling and negligence of the opposite party led to amputation, therefore, he preferred the complaint for compensation.