Back
2005 Supreme(AP) 608
2006 (4) ALT 498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
P.S. NARAYANA, J.
Mahaveer Hospital and Research Centre - Appellant
Versus
Alladi Suvarnamma and another - Respondent
City Civil Court Appeal No. 179 of 1995
Decided on 12-07-2005
Advocates appeared
Smt. K. Udayasree for Mr. G. Vidyasagar, Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Narayana Rao for Mr. G. Dhananjai, Counsel for Respondent NO.1.
Mr. Subramanyam Reddy for Mr. S. Srinivasa Reddy, Counsel for Respondent NO.2.
Headnote:
Recovery of Amount – First defendant in O.S. on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Mahaveer Hospital and Research Centre, filed present appeal as against the judgment and decree made in the aforesaid suit – Whether findings recorded by the trial Court decreeing suit for Rs. 1,50,000/- with costs as against the defendants 1 to 6 be sustained or to be disturbed in any way in the facts and circumstances of the case – If so, what relief the parties are entitled to – Held, Findings had been recorded by the trial Court fastening the liability as against the appellant hospital only and the liability was negatived as against 7th defendant who had actually operated – It is also pertinent to note that the post -operational complications may be due to various reasons – It need not necessarily be due to substandard quality of EX.A-11.lt may be dependant on the nature of the patient and several other factors – There is evidence available on record that due to complications, which the plaintiff/patient had developed after operation in the appellant hospital, she had undergone yet another operation at Durgabai Deshmukh hospital which also had been conducted by the 7th defendant only and there is some evidence available on record that the plaintiff incurred Rs.50,000/- as additional expenditure due to post-operational complications, though it is doubtful whether it was the resultant effect of the insertion of EX.A-11 or otherwise – Court is of the considered opinion that the award of Rs.1,50,000/-. – Quantum of compensation fixed by the trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not just and reasonable and hence findings no doubt are hereby confirmed to the extent referred to supra but the quantum of compensation is fixed at Rs.75,000/- taking into consideration all the relevant facts and it is needless to state that the said amount had already been received by the 1st respondent/ plaintiff – Appeal Partly Allowed
The first defendant in O.S.No. 12388 of 1988 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, Mahaveer Hospital and Research Centre, filed the present appeal as against the judgment and decree dated 13-09-1995 made in the aforesaid suit.
2. The plaintiff in the said suit is shown as 1st respondent and the 7th defendant-doctor, who had operated the patient, is shown as the 2nd respondent in the present appeal.
3. Heard Smt. K. Udayasree, learned counsel representing the appellant-first defendant, Sri Narayana Rao learned counsel representing the first respondent-plaintiff and Sri Subramanayam Reddy, learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent-7th defendant.
4. Smt. K. Udayasree learned counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence of P.W.1 and D.Ws.1 and 2 and also Exs.A -1 to A-19 and B-1 to B-4 and would contend that it is not a case of medical negligence since the suit was dismissed as against the 7th defendant, the doctor, who had operated on the plaintiff-patient. The learned counsel also would submit that the question involved in the matter is whether the steel rod, prosthesis, EX.A-11 supplied for the purpose of patient being operated is of substandard quality, so as to fasten the appellant with the liability. The learned counsel had pointed out except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no evidence available on record. Though D.W.2 in his chief-examination made an attempt to support the version of the plaintiff to some extent in cross-examination he had given a go-by and in the light of the same the hospital as such cannot be made liable, hence the appeal to be allowed.
5. Sri Narayana Rao learned counsel representing the 151 respondent-plaintiff would submit that the patient is a laywoman who has no knowledge about the standard of the surgical instruments or otherwise. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of D.W.2 and would submit that it may be that in other cases there were no complications but only due to the substandard of EX.A-11 the problems arose, hence, the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
6. Sri Subramanayam Reddy the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent-7th defendant would contend that the plaintiff patient has no grievance at all as against the doctor, she reposed confidence in the doctor as she was again operated by the self-same doctor and she was satisfied with the services of the doctor and hence the dismissal of the suit as against the 7th defendant is well justified.
7. Heard the learned counsel on record.
8. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter the parties would be referred to as 1st defendant, plaintiff, and 7th defendant respectively.
9. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of damages of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs. The suit was decreed as against the defendants 1 to 6 only for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with costs and the suit was dismissed as against the 7th defendant without costs.
10. It was pleaded in the plaint as hereunder:
"the plaintiff is the resident of Warangal, she along with her husband Alladi Shankerlingam came to Hyderabad on some personal work 20-2-1987. On the next day when both of them were going towards Tankbund from Hyderabad Nursing Home to reach Secunderabad station, the plaintiff met with an accident with Auto-Rickshaw. Immediately she was taken to M.G.M.Hospital, Secunderabad and admitted there as inpatient. The hospital authorities reported the same to the concerned police on which FIR was issued. As the Doctors were on strike, the plaintiff was shifted to Mahaveer Hospital on 23-2-1987 and was admitted there as in-patient in bed No.311. The defendant authorities advised her to get the fractured hip bone operated. The plaintiff accepted for the same and paid necessary charges of Rs.7,598/-. The operatio
