BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

F.A. No.407/2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.No.393/2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD Between:

Mr. P. Narasimhulu, S/o. Butchaiah, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 12-15-42, Janata Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad 500018.

…. Appellant/Complainant And Vijay Marie Hospital, Rep. by General managing Director, Saifabad, Chintal Basti, Hyderabad – 500004.

… Respondent/Opposite party Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s. GVS Prasad Rao &

Associates Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party : M/s. Srinivas Karra QUORUM: Hon’ble Sri Kolla Ranga Rao, Member (Judicial), &

Hon’ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member (N-J)

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE *****

ORDER : (HON’BLE SMT.R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER NON- JUDICIAL) 1. This appeal is filed u/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 by the Complainant being aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by way of order dt.23.05.2019 passed in C.C.No. 393/2017 by District Consumer Commission-III, Hyderabad, wherein the District Commission had passed the following orders:

“In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.”

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as complainants and opposite parties as arrayed in the original complaint.

3. The case of the complainant is that he is eking out his livelihood and supporting his family by running a petty business of electrical workshop. That on 17.06.2017 as his wife was suffering from loose motions since last two days, he had taken his wife to Dr. V.S.R. Prasad at about 7:30 P.M. at his clinic. The Doctor after examining his wife has prescribed certain medicines but after going home at about 10:00 P.M. his wife complained that she was unable to move her both limbs; as such the complainant took his wife to opposite party hospital at around 11:00-11:30 P.M. that the opposite party had advised to admit complainant’s wife as inpatient and advised certain tests to be carried out. However, the staff at the opposite party hospital had informed him that it was late night and next day being Sunday, the Doctors would attend the patient only on Monday. However, as the condition of the patient did not improve even by 19.06.2017, the Doctors advised to shift her to NIMS. Upon their advice she was shifted to NIMS at around 2.30 P.M. on 19.06.2017. At NIMS his wife was admitted in I.C.U where she was treated on 20.6.2017. On 21.06.2017 at around 4.00 P.M. the Doctors declared her as dead. That the opposite party kept his wife for two and a half days without giving any care and analysing the problem and failed to treat her rightly due to which the condition of his wife has deteriorated and when her condition was critical, they shifted her to NIMS where she passed away. That this act of not taking care despite of her stay in the opposite party hospital for two and a half days, amounts to negligence on the part of the opposite party. That due the death of his wife the complainant has not only suffered emotional loss but he is also subjected to financial loss as she was doing tailoring work and earning around Rs. 4000-5000 per month. That due to the death of his wife he had suffered severe mental agony and loss as such the complaint was filed seeking compensation and cost.

4. The opposite party filed its written version while admitting that the wife of the complainant was admitted to its hospital on 17.06.2017 but however opposed the complaint on the ground that: from the moment the patient was admitted to the hospital she had been given regular treatment and was taken care of by the Doctors of opposite party hospital and other staff. That the wife of the complainant P. Jyoti was brought to the hospital with complaint of loose motions in the mid-night of 17.06.2017 upon which she was immediately admitted in I.C.U and the Doctor Mrs. Subna attended the patient and in I.C.U Dr. Pramod Kumar who was on duty had attended the pati