IMPORTANT POINT
Medical Negligence – Deficiency in service – Removal of kidney when procedure was only for removal of kidney stone – Doctor not qualified – Compensation.

ORDER

Meena Ramanathan, i/c President.—The appeal is filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Karimnagar, dated 25.10.2019 in CC 204/2006, where under the opposite party was directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization and costs of Rs.5,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The brief averments of the complaint in CC 204/2006 are that the opposite party is running the hospital by name “Seva Sankalp Kidney” Hospital, Karimnagar and on 04.11.2004 due to stomach pain, the complainant went there; that after conducting medical tests, he was advised to undergo removal of kidney stones. On 05.11.2004, the complainant deposited Rs.6,000/- and on the same day operation was conducted; that the wife of the complainant was informed by the opposite party that some mistake has occurred in performing the operation and so advised to shift the patient (complainant) to Hyderabad to save the life and immediately, the complainant was shifted to NIMS, Hyderabad, where he was operated upon 08.11.2014 and discharged on 18.11.2004; that on 23.11.2014 again the complainant developed stomach pain and he was taken to Dr.R.Yakaiah, Urologist in Venkateshwara Kidney Center, Karimnagar, it was found that there was no right kidney; that after receiving the report, the complainant along with few people went to the opposite party and came to know that he closed the same on 06.11.2004 by selling the kidney of the complainant; that the complainant gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Karimnagar II town, which issued FIR in Cr.No.369/2004 and filed Charge Sheet. The actions of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service; hence, the complaint.

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the Opposite Party are that while conducting the medical tests on PW1 on 04.11.2004 found a stone with 29mm in the right renal colic and on their request open renal stone surgery was done by explaining the risk factors; that due to lot of bleeding during the operation, he found life threat to the complainant and so informed his wife and others and by explaining everything and on their request to save the life of the complainant, removed the right kidney; that he took all care and caution in conducting the operation; that during the operation 29 mm long standing stone was found in the kidney and due to the same there was heavy bleeding; that the complainant got sudden cardiac arrest; that they made several attempts to stop the bleeding and he became normal after removal of kidney; that after discussion with other doctors, the opposite party decided to shift the complainant to NIMS hospital and he also accompanied the patient to Hyderabad. All the records along with letter of referral were handed over to the patient. He has submitted in detail the stages in the operation for removal of kidney and that every precaution was taken by him and that cardiac arrest is common for every person undergoing surgery. This cannot be construed as deficiency of service nor negligence and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1. Boosa Rajamma is examined as PW2 and Dr.R.Yakaiah is examined as PW3 and

marked Ex: A1 to A11. One Dr.S.Ram Gopal, Medical Practitioner of opposite party filed evidence affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B7. Both parties filed their written arguments respectively.

5. The District Commission, after hearing and considering the material on record, “allowed the complaint in part, directing the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 22.11.2006 till realization and Rs.5,000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order”.

6. Aggrieved by the above orders, the