Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 (3) CPR 399 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member and
P.D. Shenoy, Member
Dr. D. Rama RajyamAppellant
versus
Shri P.K. Vasudeva Rao & Ors.—Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 302 and 303 of 2002
Decided on 29-5-2007

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri P. Rajagopala Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Shri G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Shri Venkat Subramanian T.R., Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
As the complainant has successfully discharged his initial burden to prove that the doctor was negligent State Commission rightly held the doctor liable who could not prove that there was no negligence on her part.

Headnote:(i)Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 21(a)(ii) read with Section 2(1)(g)—Complaint about medical negligence—Allowed by State Commission—Appeal to NC—Case sheets found not believable because of unsigned, made after the event, unsupported by affidavit—Electric surgery done as emergency surgery—No prior proper tests—Spare matching blood was not kept ready—No proof that patient was sent by Judicial Magistrate First Class—Non-charging of fees of no relevance in view of IMA v. V.P. Shanta case—Whether appeal be dismissed? (Yes).
       Held: In this case, the complainant has successfully discharged the initial burden that the doctor was negligent and as a result of the said negligence the patient died but the doctor concerned has not discharged the burden to prove that there was no negligence in her treatment.
       Hence, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the State Commission mentioned supra. Accordingly, we dismiss the first appeal Nos. 302 and 303 of 2002 filed by Dr. Rama Rajyam. (Paras 27, 28)
       (ii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(a)(ii)—Appeal for enhancement of compensation for medical negligence—Separate compensation to deceased, husband and minor children was right but claim of compensation from husband of negligent lady doctor is not correct in the absence of any negligence done by him—Compensation is reasonable—Appeal is dismissed.
       Held: The Ld. Counsel for Dr. Rama Rajyam contended that two different complaints were filed before the State Commission, one by the husband of the deceased and another by the children of the deceased, the second one through their guardian. As there is no conflict of interests between the two parties the second complaint is not maintainable, he argued. We do not find any merit in this argument because children of the deceased are also eligible for compensation as they are minors and as they were staying with their guardian and hence they have filed a separate complaint and State Commission has rightly awarded compensation to them also. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not made out any case before us to hold that Dr. D. Parasuram husband of Dr Ram Rajayam has also been negligent, hence, we are not in a position to agree with the appellant that the responsibility has to be fastened on him also.
       Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the compensation awarded by the State Commission is just and reasonable. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para 30 & 31)
       Result: Both appeals dismissed.

ORDER

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member— Both these appeals arise out of the same order of the State Commission of Andhra Pradesh which allowed the CD No. 19 of 1995 in part directing the first opposite party Dr D. Rama Rajyam to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant with interest @ 12 per annum from 2.3.1995 till payment, CD No. 52 of 1995 was allowed in part directing Dr D. Rama Rajyam to pay Rs. 2,00,000 (Rs.1,00,000 to each complainant) with interest @ 12% per annum from 5.8.1995 till payment. Dr Rama Rajyam was also directed to pay Rs. 3,000 as costs in each CD to the respective complainants. Complaint against the second opposite party Dr. Doddi Parasuram was dismissed.

2. Aggrieved by this order Dr. Rama Rajyam has filed FA No. 302 of 2002 for dismissing the complaint. FA No. 303 of 2002 was filed by Vasudeva Rao and others for enhancing the compensation given.

3. As both these cases are inter-connected and arise out of the same order of State Commission, we heard the matter together and propose to pass a common order.

Case in brief:

4. It is the say of the complainant that Dr. Rama Rajyam was working as a Medical Officer in a Primary Health Centre Balijipeta and running a nursing home at Bobbili in the name of her husband Dr. Doddi Parasuram (second opposite party). Patient Vijayalakshmi is the wife of the complainant in CD No. 19/1995 and the mother of the minor children in CD No. 52 of 1995. Smt. Vijayalakshmi was suffering from fever and her husband took her to Dr. Rama Rajyam on 10.8.1994 for treatment at her nursing home at Bobbili. She was prescribed Diclozil and asked for blood report. As the fever did not subside the patient was again taken to the nursing home on 13.8.1994 and later on 20.8.1994, on which date the patient complained of stomachache and the Dr. Rama Rajyam advised removal of uterus as it may lead to cancer without conducting any investigation. She prescribed Inferon injection for improvement of Haemoglobin and the surgery was scheduled on 8.9.1994 but was postponed to 15.9.1994. Dr. Rama Rajyam took 3½ hours for conducting the hysterectomy. In the evening the doctor requested to get blood and the complainant brought some persons for donating the blood, despite giving lot of blood there was no improvement in her condition and ultimately the patient expired at 6.10 a.m. on 18.9.1994.

5. The complainant alleged that the surgery was totally unnecessary and it was intended to extract money. Investigations like blood picture, x-ray, ultrasonic scanning, histo-pathological examination etc., were not done and anesthetist was not present, even when her condition was critical, the doctor Rama Rajyam did not allow an expert to examine or treat her. Hence, the husband of the deceased filed CD No. 19 of 1995 claiming a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 towards compensation, medical fees and other expenditure. Soon after, the minor children of the deceased filed CD No. 52 of 1995 claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 towards the loss of love and affection etc.

6. The opposite parties in their reply submitted that the deceased was suffering from Chronic Erosin Cervix. Gynecologist at Srikakulam Dr. Nirmala was treating her for the same which is not amenable for medical treatment and she advised hysterectomy which was performed at Sri Krishna Nursing Home, Bobbili run by the opposite parties which had all the equipments and facilities for conducting the surgery. The operation was successful and there was rapid improvement for three days, thereafter the patient developed unexpected complications despite giving oral fluids. Ambulance was also kept ready but the complainant did not consent to shift the patient to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Despite sincere treatment the patient died due to Cardiac Arrest.

Submissions of the learned Counsel for Dr. Rama Rajyam:

7. Learned Counsel submitted that after two months of death of the patient the complainant issued notice claiming Rs.1,50,000 as compensation which was increased subseq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 (3) CPR 399 (NC)NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHIK.S. Gupta, Presiding Member and P.D. Shenoy, MemberDr. D. Rama RajyamAppellantversusShri P.K. Vasudeva Rao & Ors.—RespondentsFirst Appeal Nos. 302 and 303 of 2002Decided on 29-5-2007

IMPORTANT POINTAs the complainant has successfully discharged his initial burden to prove that the doctor was negligent State Commission rightly held the doctor liable who could not prove that there was no negligence on her part.

Cases Referred (2)

2007 (3) CPR 399 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member and
P.D. Shenoy, Member
Dr. D. Rama RajyamAppellant
versus
Shri P.K. Vasudeva Rao & Ors.—Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 302 and 303 of 2002
Decided on 29-5-2007

IMPORTANT POINT
As the complainant has successfully discharged his initial burden to prove that the doctor was negligent State Commission rightly held the doctor liable who could not prove that there was no negligence on her part.