GORSA BANGARAMMA Vs. SUSANTHA KUMAR MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The appeal is preferred by the complainant being felt aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant was traveling by train on 24.6.2002 from Varampudi to Visakhapatnam. In the course of the travel the complainant fell down from the train and sustained severe injuries on her right knee and other parts of her body. She was shifted from the accident spot to KG Hospital Visakhapatnam and from there to the opposite party no.2 hospital. On 28.6.2002 where the doctor Alok Mujamdar had performed surgery on the abdomen of the complainant by assuring the complainant that she would recover within 15 days from the date of the operation. Before conducting the operation the doctors in the second opposite party hospital had not diagnosed the knee fracture of the complainant. After performing the operation, the first opposite party advised the complainant to attend on 18.7.2002 for MRI scan at Dolphin Diagnostic Services Limited. Accordingly, the complainant had undergone the MRI test. After examining the knee fracture, the first opposite party opined that the complainant required the replacement of knee joint with implant. On 25.7.2002 the first opposite party advised for stay of 15 days in the second opposite party hospital after the complainant has undergone the knee surgery. On 6.8.2002 the first opposite party had performed the knee surgery upon the complainant. The date of surgery was by mistake mentioned as 6.7.2002 in the legal notice instead of 6.8.2002. The complainant was suffering from knee pain immediately after the surgery was performed. The opposite party no.1 advised for an x-ray. The x-ray report dated 9.8.2002 revealed that the affixed implantation was dislocated and the operation completely failed.

(3.) Prior to the date of the operation, the first opposite party advised the complainant to take X-ray of the fractured knee joint. The x-ray revealed fracture at knee joint. Basing on the x-ray report the first opposite party had performed the operation on 6.8.2002 on the knee joint of the complainant. The medical procedure prescribed treatment for the complainants problem as ligaments reconstruction i.e., functioning of veins system at knee joint but not replacement of the complainants injured knee by way of affixing artificial steel joint i.e., I.E. Implantation. The complainant has been suffering from pain and became 100% disabled due to the negligent operation conducted by the first opposite party. The complainant is unable to walk and move from her bed. After the total knee replacement by the first opposite party the complainant is unable to bend right knee joint. In the discharge summary the opposite parties no.1 and 2 admitted the fact that the complainant was not able to bend her right knee. The failure of the opposite parties in performing operation by exercising due care was confirmed by Kamineni Hospital in the discharge summary dated 25.9.2002.