SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38594

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr.Amogha Varsha Y – Appellant
Versus
M/s Sagar Hospital – Respondent
SC/29/CC/149/2009



Petitioner Advocates:Chandrashekar Achar ,Respondent Advocate: Srinivas

,",:1',Tll'l'1": ; li. I I i3 33 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 21* DAY OFNOVEMBER 2025 coRAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTTGE T.c. SHTVASHANKARE GowDA - PRESTDENT and HON,BLE MTs. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI - LADY MEMBER sct29tcctL49t2009 BE EEN:

MR.AMOGHA VARSHA Y, S/O J YELLAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, MEDICALLY DISABLED AND PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY HIS NATUAL GUARDIAN/

MOTHER SMT. K.GOWRAMMA, WO J YELLAPPA GOWDA, NO. 143, pALABOVIDODDI (BRINDAVAN), HARISANDRA POST, RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.

coMPLAINANT/S (BY SRI.VINAY 8.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S SAGAR HOSPITAL, A UNIT OF M.G.V.P. TRUST, NO.44/54,30rH CROSS, TILAK NAGAR, ]AYANAGAR EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560041.

REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, A) DR.HEMACHANDRA SAGAR B) DR. D.PREMACHANDRA SAGAR ........ oPPOSTTE PARTY/S (BY SRT.H.SRINTVAS RAO, ADVOCATE)

OR L OR ER (PER: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.G. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, PRESIDENT)

This Complaint is filed Uls t2 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short Cp Act) seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- alleging medical negligence against the OP Hospital, represented by its Directors.

2.

The Brief facts of the case are that, that the complainant met with an accident on L2.12.2007 at 8:30pm near Kempegowdanadoddi Village, Magadi Road, Bengaluru and sustained head injury and fractures to femur, left maxilla, grievous injury to face, left lower limbs and left leg. He was immediately taken to NIMHANS, Bengaluru, as he was in coma due to head injury. Since there is no proper ventilator facility available at NIMHANS he was asked to go to the other higher hospital where the facility is available. For better treatment, the complainant was taken to Op hospital which is situated at Jayanagar, Bengaluru at 2:16am on t3.L2.2007. The hospital authorities have explained to the family member of the complainant that the treatment may cost up to Rs.3,00,000/- and asked them to deposit Rs.25,000/_ Immediately, the patient was to be kept in ICU and further investigation was done and also the treatment was required to be started.

Immediately it was not provided but it was provided only at 8:30am.

The expert doctor Mr.prathap Kumar pani had visited the patient and advised for C.T.scan and other scanning.

C.T.Scan was done at 12:30pm and the complainant was subjected to undergo left Fronto_

Tempo-Partial Craniotomy with Evacuation of EDH subsequently.

Thereafter the complainant was put into the ventilator and skeletal traction was given by Dr.Kishore Subbaiah and other surgeons namely Dr.Girish Rao. Thereafter the complainant was supervised. On 13.L2.2007 the major operation was carried out on Maxilla and Mandible Orbit and Zygoma and did interlocking of Left Femur.

2(a).

There is negligence on the part of the doctors as they failed to take immediately and proper decision in order to subject the complainant to the surgery; he was not properly attended by the nurses and the doctors which affected the complainant with fever and hiccups. The doctors have neglected the patient on the ground that he will not survive and repeatedly discouraged the attendants for the request of treatment as it is waste and they have behaved rudely. The duty doctors and nurses of the hospital have wrongly done the Skeletal Traction beyond 30 days to the left leg which caused disfigurement and reduction of size of the left leg. 2(b).

The OP has charged the exorbitant bills. The complainant was kept in ICU for 22 days in a Special Ward and only in the month January 2008 he was shifted to General Ward. After the complainant was shifted to the General Ward his attendants noticed negligence on the part of the hospital staff.

Tracheostomy (Tracheotomy) was also done to fix the breathing which has also caused problem to the complainant.

Endoscopy Tube was wrongly fixed by the nurses and duty doctors which caused stomach injury for more than two months. The complainant has suffered several infections and cannot be controlled by the hospital; the complainant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top