BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY Dated this the 25^th day of June 2025 FIRST APPEAL No.02/2024 Dr.L. Nethaji, S/o.K.Loganathan, No.8, 7^th Cross Street, Rainbow Nagar, Puducherry-605 011. ... Appellant/Opposite Party Vs Amutha, W/o.Arumugam, Nadukuppam, Kottakuppam Post, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu. … Respondent/Complainant (On appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry in CC No.70/2008 dated 15.09.2023)

CC No.70/2008 Amutha, W/o.Arumugam, Nadukuppam, Kottakuppam Post, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu …. Complainant Vs.

Dr. L.Nethaji, Chief Medical Officer, Govt. General Hospital, Puducherry, Having Clinic At No.427, Bharathi Street, Puducherry-605 001. …. Opposite Party BEFORE:

DR.S.SUNDARAVADIVELU, PRESIDING MEMBER TMT.S. OUMASANGUERY, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT Tvl.S.Vimal, B.J.Vijayalakshmi, Advocates FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Thiru.V.Govindaradjou, Advocate

O R D E R

(By Dr.S.Sundaravadivelu, Presiding Member)

This appeal has been filed under Section 41 r/w.Sect.47(1)(a)(iii) and (b)_of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry (hereinafter called as District Commission in short) in CC No.70/2008. The appellant herein was the opposite party in the complaint before the District Commission and the District Commission had found the opposite party to be negligent in treatment of the respondent herein who was the complainant and awarded a compensation of Rs 3,50,000.

Gist of the complaint before the District Commission was as follows:

2. The complainant consulted with the opposite party on 30.08.2006 for severe pain on the back of the right leg at the opposite party‟s clinic and after X ray and sonography of the right knee joint, the opposite party diagnosed the problem as Baker's cyst. As advised the complainant got herself admitted in A.G Padmavathi‟s Hospital ltd for excision of the cyst. The opposite party conducted excision of the cyst on 06.09.2006 and the complainant was treated as in patient till 08.09.2006.Then, the complainant called on the opposite party at his clinic on 15.09.2006 and the opposite party prescribed five items of medicine and advised to come for consultation on

27.09.2006.On 27.09.2006 during her visit the complainant informed that she was not able to walk properly and the opposite party prescribed six items of medicine and advised to call on him later.

3. On 29.12.2006, the complainant informed the opposite party that even after three months she could not walk properly. The opposite party prescribed three medicines and advised to undergo physiotherapy with one MKV Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation clinic for electrical stimulation of the right leg for 15 days. As the foot drop in right leg was not healed, as advised by the Opposite party ,on 11.01.2007 the complainant consulted one Dr.Raguveer who advised to undergo physiotherapy with Gopi physiotherapy Clinic wherein she underwent Ultra sound therapy, mobilisation and stretching exercises. As there was no improvement, the opposite party advised to consult Dr.Rajarathinam who also advised to undergo physiotherapy with the said Gopi Physiotherapy clinic. Then the complainant had consultation in Jipmer hospital on 20.03.2007 wherein she was advised for expansion and repair of the nerve and for nerve conduction study which was done at Jipmer hospital on 13.04.2007.She consulted with Miot Hospital, Chennai also wherein the doctors opined that the right common peroneal nerve motor potential and right sural sensory potential was absent and opined the same as Doctors of Jipmer. She was admitted at Jipmer Hospital on 29.08.2007 and surgery was done on her right leg on 11.09.2007 and treated as inpatient till 29.09.2007 and advised to come for review after 35 days. Due to the faulty operation for excision of baker's cyst only all these complications had arisen and the opposite party