Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President &
Mr. C.P. Suresh , Member
DULIPUDI SRINIVAS—Complainant
versus
DR. PARASA YOGALINGESWARA RAO—Opposite Party
C.D. No. 7 of 1996—Decided on 29.8.2002
Medical Negligence - Compensation - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a tractor mechanic, sustained a leg injury in a road accident and approached the opposite party doctor for treatment. The doctor's treatment led to complications, including gangrene, resulting in the amputation of the complainant's leg. The complainant sought compensation for loss of earnings, mental agony, and treatment expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite party doctor's negligent treatment resulted in permanent disability to the complainant. The court awarded compensation for treatment expenses, permanent disability, and mental agony, totaling Rs. 1,75,000 with interest at 12% p.a.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was negligence on the part of the opposite party doctor in the treatment of the complainant's leg injury.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite party doctor's application of Plaster of Paris (POP) on the open wound, failure to provide proper follow-up treatment, and lack of evidence to support his version indicated negligence. The court also considered the complainant's occupation and age in determining the compensation.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaint, directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,75,000 with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment, along with costs of Rs. 5,000.
Mr. Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President—The facts as emerge from a reading of the complaint are that the complainant who is a tractor mechanic, Machilipatnam sustained injury to his left leg in a road accident on 4.8.1995 approached the opposite party Orthopaedic Surgeon, hereinafter called ‘the doctor’. On examination the doctor diagnosed the problem as fracture of Tibial Plethora with an open wound. He applied Plaster of Paris (POP) on open wound which is opposed to all medical practices, as a result of which the complainant suffered swelling over his left thigh, knee, leg along with tenderness with multiple blisters around the leg, loss of sensation from middle 1/3rd and finally the leg was amputated making him cripple for the rest of his life. The complainant had to suffer this disability at the age of 28 years on account of the careless treatment given by the doctor and he had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- for the treatment at NIMS, Hyderabad, consequently he had to give up his lucrative business of tractor mechanism earning Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- a month. Hence he claims a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs towards loss of earnings, Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony, Rs. 50,000/- towards treatment, totalling to Rs. 7,50,000/-.
2. In the written version filed by the doctor it is admitted that the complainant sustained a leg injury in a road accident on 4.8.1995. He approached the opposite party through a common friend Mr. Devi on 4.8.1995 at about 10.00 p.m. for first-aid. The opposite party was running only a clinic-cum-residence. Immediately he attended on the complainant by giving first-aid and advised them to go to Government Hospital for further treatment as the opposite party had no facilities for treatment and since it is a medico legal case as the complainant along with two persons driving Luna in a drunken state met with a road side accident. It is denied that he applied plaster of paris as alleged. But the complainant instead of going to Government Hospital approached him again on 6.9.1995. On examination he observed that the complainant took country side treatment and noticed swelling on the leg and suspected that gas gangrene has developed after 36 hours due to complainant’s negligence. As the complainant did not approach the Government Hospital as advised but obtained country side treatment, negligence on his part is writ large. He has discharged his duty as a doctor by giving first-aid and proper advice and, therefore, there is no negligence on his part.
3. The complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 besides examining one S.V. Subba Rao as P.W. 2 and filed Exs. A-1 to A-64. The opposite party also examined himself as R.W. 1 and filed Exs. B-1 to B-3. Dr. V.B.N. Prasad Rao, Professor and Head of Orthopaedic Department, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences was examined as C.W. 1 and marked Exs. C-1 to C-4.
4. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is any negligence on the part of the opposite party doctor ?
5. The case of the complainant is very simple and straight forward. His case is that he met with a road accident on 4.8.1995 and sustained injury on his left leg and immediately approached the opposite party doctor who diagnosed it as a fracture of tibial plethora with an open wound. He applied bandage due to which he developed gangrene. The doctor however advised him to contact a specialist at Vijayawada on 6.8.1995 and he was shifted in an ambulance from Machilipatnam. However, the doctor at Vijayawada advised him to go to NIMS and he was accordingly admitted in NIMS as inpatient and his leg was amputated due to the negligent course of treatment adopted by the opposite party resulting swelling of the leg and development of ganrene. The opposite party denied this in his written version, more so in his proof affidavit that he had put any plaster of paris as it was an open wound.
6. The complainant filed Ex. A-58 in the handwriting of the doctor which does not bear any date. The compl
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
