D. RAMU Vs. VENKATA MALLA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant approached the opposite party on 8.1.1995 complaining pain in the back and the opposite party advised for admission on 20.1.1995. The complainant was advised to undergo tests on 21.1.1995 at Surya Pathological Laboratory, Godavarikhani and Venkateshwara Diagnostic Centre, Godavarikhani where he spent Rs.5,000/- and submitted a report to the opposite party who stated that he was suffering from Spondylolisthesis in L5 and S1 and loose posterior each of L5 and performed an operation on 21.1.1995 and asked the complainant to come on 28.1.1995, 5.2.1995, 18.2.1995, 25.2.1995 and 12.3.1995 and prescribed some medicines but the pain did not reduce. Once again on 25.3.1995 the complainant was asked to get C.T. scan done and go to NIMS. The complainant went to Kamineni Hospital on 5.5.1995 and got the C.T. scan done and paid Rs.5000/- and the report showed the evidence of Spondylolisthesis at L5-S1 and mild disc bulge pressing the spinal cord and obliterating the left lateral recers and a similar bulge is also evident at L5S1 and evidence of facet joint hypertrophy also ossification of ligamentum flavum. The complainant was treated at Kamineni Hospital as an out patient but the complainant once again suffered of pain and was reviewed by the Medical Board on 29.6.1995 and was found to be unfit to work as General Masdoor in underground. The complainant approached the opposite party once again and opposite party performed graft operation on 15.7.1995 which was necessitated only because of the wrong operation conducted by him on 21.1.1995. He was under the care of opposite party till 20.8.1995 but the pain did not subside and he once again went to Kamineni Hospital till 11.9.1995. He was referred by Dr. P.R.K.Prasad, Hyderabad to Medwin Hospital, Hyderabad where he took ENMG on Rs. 19.10.95 on payment of Rs.1000/- and the said report showed right lateral popliteal (L5) and posterior tibial nerves (S1) show marginally reduced conduction velocities, grossly reduced amplitude of C-MAP and prolonged distal and f-wave latencies. Meanwhile his services were terminated and an office memo dt. 30.7.95 was served to the complainant. The complainant submits that it was only because of negligent operation of the opposite party on 21.1.95, he was got operated again on 15.7.95 and the complainant being poor could not afford third surgery and also could not get any relief and los this job. He was provided an alternative employment on humanitarian grounds and he was appointed as Surface General Mazdoor. He was drawing Rs.4,300/- per month and today he is being paid Rs.2,630/- without any overtime benefit He also lost the future promotional benefits and spent Rs.27,000/-and Rs.20,000/- towards the tests and medicines and also suffered severe mental agony and has to spend atleast Rs.50,000/- for further treatment. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.4 ,97,100/- towards various heads with other reliefs.

(2.) Opposite party filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and stating that on 21.1 95 he performed surgery on the complainant at L4 L5 level and excised posterior arch of L5 which was loose, he inspected the dural tube which was found normal and he did posterior final fusion using Iliac cortical and concillous bone graft which is the procedure as described by Bose Worth. On 25.3.95 after following the patient regularly for 3 months as the patient was persistently complaining of pain and as there was no obvious cause found to explain the pain he advised the complainant to go to Hyderabad to get C.T. scan of Lambosacral spine. Opposite party submits that as per the reports he noticed that there is instability of spine and he decided to continue with conservative management during which period one of the bone graft strucks got displaced and hence it was removed on 15.7.1995 which he absolutely do not have any bearing on the prognosis of the patient as there is sufficient concellous bone graft still left inside to be consolidated and as the pain was still persisting he advised him to go to Hyderabad again to take second opinion of Neuro Surgeon whether L4-L5 Disc bulge is the cause for pain or not and whether it required surgery and if so which technique is to be adopted. The allegation that the surgery was unnecessary was not correct as the pain was not subsiding . They advised the C.T. Scan which showed another lesion on mild disk bulge at L4-L5. They did not perform surgery for Disc Bulge at L4-L5 level because they are not certain whether it is the cause for the pain or not due to the lack of co-relation between the C.T. Scan report and patients symptoms and later they took second opinion of Neuro Surgeon who also could not come to a conclusion until after ENMG was done. The removal of bone graft pieces which is mentioned as second operation in the petition was a minor surgery and is of no significance regarding the prognosis of the patient. The first surgery was essentially performed to remove the loose posterior arch which pressed on the nerve root and causes pain and this was done perfectly as can be verified from the C.T. Scan. Opposite party submits that every person who works in underground coal mines who is having spinal disc bulge or spondylolesthesis or both is declared unfit to work in underground mines whether operated or not. Opposite party submits that there is no negligence on his part in diagnosing the disease or in performing the surgery or in post operative follow up or in advising further investigations.

(3.) Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A71 and Ex.B1 and Ex.C1 the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition and costs of Rs.1000/- within one month.