BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.806 OF 2021 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.20 OF 2019, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, ADILABAD Between:

Dr.Sandeep Reddy, Venkateshwara Orthopedic Hospital, Mochigally, Nethaji Chowk, Adilabad.

..…Appellant/Opposite Party And L.Narsaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Occ: Pensioner, R/o.H.No.3-5-44, Tatiguda, Adilabad.

…..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party : M/s.A.Naveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s.K.Rama Subbarao FA.NO.415 OF 2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.20 OF 2019, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, ADILABAD Between:

L.Narsaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Occ: Pensioner, R/o.H.No.3-5-44, Tatiguda, Adilabad.

..…Appellant/Complainant And Dr.Sandeep Reddy, Venkateshwara Orthopedic Hospital, Mochigally, Nethaji Chowk, Adilabad.

…..Respondent/Opp.Party Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: M/s.K.Rama Subbarao Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party: M/s.A.Naveen Kumar QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE *******

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble In-charge President)

1. These appeals are filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the order dated 06.12.2021 passed in CC.No.20 of 2019 on the file of District Consumer Commission, Adilabad. The Opposite Party filed FA.No.806/2021 and the Complainant filed FA.No.415/2022. As both these appeals arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

[

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that – the Complainant, a pensioner consulted the doctor at Opposite Party hospital for pain and swelling to his right lower leg on 17.08.2018. At the time of admission, he informed the Opposite Party doctor that he is a diabetic. In spite of the treatment, he claims his pain increased and although he informed the doctor, there was no proper response. He developed cellulites and as his condition was critical, he was rushed to Sri Gajanan Hospital, Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad and immediate surgery was conducted and he underwent amputation of his right lower leg. He has filed the present complaint on the grounds that the negligent attitude of the Opposite Party in not providing the proper treatment has caused him this intense suffering and loss of limb. Therefore, the Complainant prays for the reliefs for his sufferings.

4. The Opposite Party has specifically pleaded that the Complainant doesn’t come under the definition of Consumer as defined in Section 2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act as no professional fee was charged towards treatment. In the instant case, this Opposite Party provided medical treatment on humanitarian grounds and there is no deficiency or negligence on his part. No receipt for fees paid is filed by the Complainant.

5. The Complainant is a chronic diabetic and developed cellulites and was advised to go to a higher medical centre, but the Complainant requested this Opposite Party to continue the treatment owing to paucity of funds. At the time of discharge, not only the referral letter but also treatment records and summary were given to the Complainant’s son. All the allegations are false and baseless and this Opposite Party has provided all the necessary and reasonable treatment with due care and seeks dismissal of the complaint.

6. Before the District Commission, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A12 on his behalf. The Opposite Party filed evidence affidavit and no documents are reported on their behalf.

7. The District Commission after hearing and considering the material on record, allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, to pay an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards replacement of limb and damages with interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till realizati