SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 32486

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,VIJAYAWADA
C. V. Surya Bhaskaram (Presiding Member), *B. Srinivasa Rao (Member)
Bommala Venkata Rao (Died) v. M/s. Sangamithra Hospital
Consumer Complaint



Advocates:
For the Complainant:Advocate Name
For the Opposite Party:Advocate Name

Medical negligence is defined by a breach of duty. Mere errors in judgment by medical professionals don't equate to negligence if they act within acceptable standards.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17(i)(a) - Medical negligence - Complaint regarding unnecessary medical procedure undertaken without consent - The complainant alleged that a stent was placed in his kidney without consent or proper medical justification leading to complications. The hospital claimed that the procedure was necessary due to diagnosed health issues as verified by medical tests. The principles of medical negligence and the responsibilities of healthcare providers were evaluated. The court found no negligence by the hospital and dismissed the complaint. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Negligence - Definition - Medical negligence involves a breach of duty to exercise reasonable care which results in harm to the patient. The court reiterated established legal principles regarding medical negligence, emphasizing that mere errors in judgment do not constitute negligence. (Paras 9-12)

Facts of the case:
The complainant underwent treatments at multiple hospitals and alleged that a stent was inserted without his consent, leading to health issues. The opposite party hospital justified the procedure as medically necessary due to the patient's renal condition.

Findings of Court:
The court found no negligence on the part of the opposite party and ruled that the complainant's treatment was conducted with due care and procedure was justified. The complaint was dismissed as the healthcare provider acted responsibly.

Issues: The primary issues were whether there was a deficiency in service by the hospital and whether the complainant was entitled to compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of an instant remedy does not imply negligence on the doctor’s part, emphasizing the responsibility of patients to adhere to treatment guidance. The hospital had acted within reasonable medical standards.

Result: Complaint dismissed.

Table of Content
1. complaint concerning treatment and health issues. (Para 1 , 2)
2. response from the hospital detailing their procedures. (Para 3 , 6 , 12)
3. plaintiffs detailed their reasons for dissatisfaction. (Para 5 , 8)
4. legal standards surrounding medical negligence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. final decision of the court. (Para 13)

1. This complaint is filed, under S.17(i)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , praying to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.99,99,000 towards unnecessary expenditure of money, mental agony and loss of health and for expenditure and to award future interest from the date of complaint till payment, to the complainants.

2. The gist of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant has been suffering from ill - health, went to Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai on 01/03/2014 and for examination, they have conducted several tests and stated that there is some problem in Kidneys and advised him to use medicines for one month, so that the illness will be cured and given medicines to him. The complainant went to Sanghamitra Hospital, Ongole on 12/06/2014 and they have also conduced some tests by the hospital and advised the patient to join as inpatient and accordingly the complainant admitted as inpatient in the opposite party hospital on 17/06/2014 and the doctor once again examined and advised him to put stunt to clear the infection in the kidneys. The complainant wanted to take another opinion from the specialist doctor Chenhuramjireddy in that hospital and the complainant did not accept, to put stent to his kidneys on the date of 17/06/2014. But the doctor S.V. Krishna Rao did not agree his request and threatened he did not agree his request and threatened him that he will be in danger, if the stent is not used and further contended that in these circumstances, the said doctor said to his wife that he is in life danger, there is an emergency to put stunt to the complainant's kidneys and the doctor made the pressure on him through his wife and without his consent and knowledge and without taking his signature on 17/06/2014 at mid night at 1.00 a.m. the said doctor put stent to the complainant kidneys and advised to stay for four weeks as in patient and the stent will be removed after four weeks and that after stent put to kidneys in the early hours of the complainant have suffered with pain and vomiting while he was on the bed, then his wife out of fear called the doctor through phone, but in vain. So it is clear that the Sanghamitra Hospital, Ongole did not care of health and did not attend properly to give treatment to the complainant. The complainant visited number of hospitals time and again and subsequently the complainant approached the NIMs hospital, Hyderabad on 04/04/2015, there the doctors Sri Bhushan Raju, Dr. G. Rajesh examined complainant and state that there is a problem in Kidneys of the complainant, due to the stent placed by the Sanghamitra Hospital. The puss is oozing outside from kidneys without break and the urine is not filtering properly, and there was no necessary to put stunt to him. Due to the unnecessarily stunt done by the said Sanghamitra Hospital, Ongole, the complainant has suffered very much from prolonged illness and some of the urine absorbed into his body and giving troubles to the body by swelling of the body, without the complainant's interest and consent, the doctor of Sanghamitra Hospital, Ongole put stent and it is done only for getting medi - claim amount of Rs.90,000/- and in addition to the said amount the complainant spent another amount of Rs.15,000/- to the medical expenditure at opposite party hospital due to unnecessarily putting stent and still he is suffering a lot and the Sanghamitra Hospital, Ongole is solely responsible for the stunt done to him unnecessarily, so there is clearly deficiency in rendering service to the complainant by the opposite party hospital and prayed this Commission to allow the complaint and grant compensation as prayed for.

3. The





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top