BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD (ADDITIONAL BENCH)

F.A.No.369/2019 against C.C.No.742/2012, District Commission-II, Hyderabad.

Between :

1.Fernadez Hospital represented by its Managing Director.

2. Dr.S.Kasthuri, Gynaecologist

3. Dr.Shanthi, Gynaecologist 4. Dr.Srisha, Gynaecologist (All are C/o.Fernadez Hospital, Bogulkunta, Abids, Hyderabad. …Appellants/

Opposite parties And Smt. P.Haritha, W/o.V.Ravikrishna, Aged about 28 years, R/o.3-7-338/1, Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. … Respondent/

Complainant Counsel for the Appellants : M/s.Rupendra Mahendra.

Counsel for the Respondent : M/s.Srinivasa Rao Pachwa.

CORAM : Hon’ble Sri V.V.Seshubabu, Member (J), Hon’ble Sri K.Ranga Rao, Member (J)

And Hon’ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member (NJ).

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE .

Oral Order:(Per Hon’ble Sri V.V.Seshubabu, Member (J)

****

01). The appeal is filed u/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad in C.C.No.742/2012 dt.27.5.2019 directing the opposite parties with joint and several liability to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards the second surgery, Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as costs to be complied in 30 days failing which the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-

and Rs.5 lakhs shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. till realisation.

02). a). The brief averments of the complaint in C.C.No.742/2012 are that the opposite party no.1 is the Maternity hospital represented by its Managing Director, opposite party no.2 is senior Gynaecologist, whereas the opposite parties 3 & 4 are also Gynaecologists working in opposite party no.1 hospital; that the complainant conceived in the month of November,2010 and initially had ante natal checkups at Singapore and registered at opposite party no.1 hospital vide ANC no.3122/11 and MR NO.157682 on 27.5.2011; that she consulted opposite party no.2 and after conducting investigation and tests, the complainant was informed that everything was normal and even given the expected date of delivery as 6.9.2011; that subsequently, the complainant went for regular checkups; that on 8.9.2011 having completed 40 weeks of gestation period, she was admitted in opposite party no.1 hospital with suspicious vaginal leakage; that she was kept under observation and on 9.9.2011 around 6 p.m. opposite party no.2 informed the complainant and her parents that there were no forceable complications and they are expecting normal delivery; that around 8 p.m. she was taken into the labour room and around 11 p.m. one of the junior doctors informed to the parents of the complainant that she needs emergency caesarean operation and accordingly operation was performed and she delivered a male baby and post operative period was said to be uneventful and she was discharged on 13.9.2011 to come for review on 17.10.2011 to consult opposite party no.2.

b). It is further mentioned that on 27.9.2011, the complainant had continuous urine leakage unintentionally and so, rushed to opposite party no.1 hospital, where she was examined by junior doctor by name Soujanya who passed on information to opposite party no.2 , but she was not turned up; that Dr.Sowjanya advised the complainant to consume plenty of water and to perform pelvic floor exercises to stop leakage of urine; that inspite of repeated appeals the opposite party no.2 not turned up and she deliberately avoided the complainant; that the hospital people made the complainant to leave the premises without giving any remedy to her problem; that on the same day, she rushed to Kamineni Hospital at L.B. Nagar and doctors informed that she has “Urethrovaginal Fistula” and referred her to Urologist who after conducting diagnostic procedures informed that the problem occurred during the caesarean operation and it has to be fixed by conducting another surgery; that the complainant got operated on 30.9.2011 and the problem was fixed; that due to the negligence in cond