LANGAPOTHU PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY Vs. POORNIMA MATERNITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The appeal is filed challenging the order of the District Forum in C.D.No.122 of 2004 whereof the District forum dismissed the complaint holding that the appellant failed to produce documentary evidence that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service in regard to providing treatment for the fractured hip of the appellant.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant underwent surgery for fracture to his left hip and thigh in the month of November 1999. The appellant was treated as inpatient in the respondent no.1 hospital for the period from 1.11.1999 to 4.12.1999 during the course of which period operation was performed by a group of doctors on 13.11.1999 in the respondent no.1 hospital where the implants were removed by the doctors later in the month of August 2001. After the implants were removed the appellant reported pain and difficulty in walking. The doctors in the respondent no.1 hospital advised for physiotherapy and bed rest for the appellant for about 10 months. The appellant was unable to attend to his normal pursuits due to persistence of internal disability as a result of which he lost his job and an income of Rs.4,000/- per month. The appellant incurred an amount of Rs.one lakh towards hospital expenditure, pre-operative and post-operative expenses. The appellant suffered mental tension and physical pain. He had got issued legal notice dated 18 .4.2003 to the respondents in response to which they got issued reply dated 23.4.2003.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the respondent no.1 hospital that the appellant underwent surgery for fracture on 13.11.1999 in respondent no.1 hospital and he came after two years for removal of the implants in the year 2001. The appellant got issued notice for which the respondent no.1 has got issued reply dealing with all the facts. The respondent no.2 was working with Yashoda Hospital as also with the respondent no.1 hospital. The respondent no.2 performed surgery on the appellant and attended to post operative treatment as also he advised for discharge of the appellant on 23.11.1999. The appellant expressed his inability to pay the charges and continued to be as an inpatient till 4.12.1999. In all the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.17,000/- and at the time of discharge he was hale and healthy. There was no complaint of pain from him at any time subsequent to discharge from respondent no.1 hospital. After two years the appellant got removed the implants through the respondent no.2 in the month of August 2001. Thereafter the appellant did not comply nor did he come again with any problem to the respondent no.1 hospital. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 hospital. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.