BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALC OMMISSION:H YDERABAD.

CC.NO.193 OF 2019 Between:

Sri C.Srinivasulu, S/o. C.Rajanarsimha Aged 53, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No,2-876, Peddakottapally, Nagarkurnool District ....Complainant And . Anurag Orthopaedic& Multi Specialty Hospital, Badam Complex, Chaitanyapuri X Road, Dilsukhnagar,H yderabad -60.

Rep. by ^The CEO/Manager

2. Dr. P. Raju, M/s. Ortho, Anurag orthopaedic &

Multi specialty Hospital, Badam Complex, Chaitanyapuri X Road, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad -60.

Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainant M/s. A. Mahadev Mr. A.NaveenKumar Counsel for the Opposite Parties deemed served][ set exparte]

QUORUM: ^{HON'BLE SRI} V.V. SESHUBABU,MEMBER (J)

HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NJ)

-

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWo (Per Hon'ble Smt. ^R. Rajeshree, Member-Non -Judicial)

Order

1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- and also award the reasonable costs.

2. The brieff acts of the case are as follows:

The case of the complainant is that, he is a businessman and runs a kirana shop and for the same often visits Begum Bazar to purchase the groceries on wholesale basis and on 08.11.2017 when he visited Begum Bazar for purchases, he met with an accident and having coming to know the reputation of Opposite Party Hospital he was brought to the Opposite Party Hospital and got himself admitted, on the same day and he was operated upon for the fracture of left tibia with locking plating, done, with deep fascia opened causing decompression and he was discharged on

17.11.2017.

But, however, post operation there was no developmentand the numbness was still persisting. Due to which he had to visit Neha Hospital, where he was admitted on

27.11.2017 and discharged on 29.11.2017, though he was diagnosed to ^be having infected proximal tibia fracture with LCP insitu. He had also necrosied tissue anterior aspect left leg slough infected and therefore he was referred to a higher centre for further management. Accordingly, ^he got himself admitted at KIMMSs Hospital on 12.01.2018 and discharged on 13.01.2018 and again on 24.01.2018 and discharged o n 25.01.2018. There at KIMMS he was diagnosed for tibia wound debridement and the wound debridement was done and secondary suturing was also done along with skin grafting over left leg with the skin taken from right thigh ^{of the} complainant and it was specifically noted that he developed surgical site infection and foot drop with the above facts it is clear that, due to the negligence of Opposite Party No.1. He had developed the iníection at the surgical site and as such he had to incur a further expenditure of Rs.6,00,000/-for the treatment at the Opposite Party Hospital and the other two hospitals. Due to the negligent acts of Opposite Party he had not only the suffered monetary loss, physical pain and mental agony but also incurred a loss in his business.

As such he got issued a legal notice on

05.08.2019 but, however, the Opposite Parties failed to reply though received it, having no other option he is before this Commission seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the physical pain and mental agony and loss incurred by him.

3. The Opposite parties remained absent as such set exparte and there is no written version or evidence affidavit on their behalf. The Complainant has filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on his behalf.

4. The points that arises for consideration are, Whether the Opposite Party have been negligent in their services?

Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

3. If, yes, to what extent?

We have heard the arguments and having perused material on record.

6. Point Nos.1 & 2:- The case of the complainant is that, having met ^with an accident he approached the Opposite Parties who had operated on him but a