| Complaint Case No. CC/269/2010 | | ( Date of Filing : 21 Oct 2010 ) |
| | | | 1. Beena Rajesh | | W/o. Rajesh T.B.
aged about 31 years,
R/at Shivashakthi Nilaya,
7th Hoskote, Suntikoppa,
Somawarpet Taluk,
Coorg District.
|
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Vivius Hospital Pvt. Ltd., | | Daswal Road, Opp. Basappa Theatre,
Madikeri 571 201.
Rep. by its CMD. | | 2. S.S.Ramesh CMD | | M/s VIVUS Hospital Daswal Road,
Opp. Basappa Theatre,
Madikeri 571 201.
| | 3. Dr.K.Raghavan DMRD, | | Radiologist,
M/s VIVUS Hospital Daswal Road,
Opp. Basappa Theatre,
Madikeri 571 201.
| | 4. Dr.Sunitha Rao, Gynecologist | | M/s VIVUS Hospital Daswal Road,
Opp. Basappa Theatre,
Madikeri 571 201. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 269/2010
|
Mrs. Beena Rajesh,
W/o T.B. Rajesh,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at Shivashakthi Nilaya,
7th Hoskote, Suntikoppa,
Somawarpet Taluk,
Coorg District.
(By Sri G. Kamaladhar)
|
.…… Complainant/s
|
V/s
|
1.
|
M/s VIVUS Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Daswal Road,
Opp. Basappa Theatre,
Madikeri 571 201,
Represented by its CMD.
|
... Opposite Party/ies
|
|
2.
|
Dr. S.S. Ramesh, CMD,
M/s VIVUS Hospital, Daswal Road,
Opp. Basappa Theatre,
Madikeri 571 201.
|
|
|
3.
|
Dr. K. Raghavan, DMRD,
Radiologist,
M/s VIVUS Hospital,
Daswal Road,
Opp. Basappa Theatre,
Madikeri 571 201.
|
|
|
4.
|
Dr. Sunitha Rao,
Gynecologist,
M/s VIVUS Hospital,
Daswal Road,
Opp. Basappa Theatre,
Madikeri 571 201.
(By Smt. S. Radha Pyari for OPs 1 to 4)
|
|
|
5.
|
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Represented by Divisional
Manager, Ground Floor,
Coffee Krupa Building,
Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Madikeri 571 201.
(By Sri B.N. Vinod Kumar)
|
|
ORDER
Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties alleging medical negligence in not diagnosing the defect found in the baby. Hence, prayed for compensation of Rs.93 lakhs along with other expenses.
2. The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that during June 2008 she had conceived for the first time and after 1 ½ months, it was terminated as per the advice of Opposite Party No.3. Subsequently, after next four months from the date of medical termination of pregnancy, she again conceived and approached the Opposite Party No.1 hospital and consulted Opposite Party No.4 doctor on 12.12.2008. After consultation, she was advised to take certain prescriptions. Later, the complainant was under periodical visit and accordingly she has taken the prescriptions dt.12.12.2008, 03.02.2009, 18.02.2009 and 12.05.2009. Further, the Opposite Party No.4 doctor advised the complainant to undergo required investigations and as per the prescription of Opposite Party No.4, the Opposite Party No.3 conducted necessary medical investigation such as ultra sound scanning, blood test, urine test etc. The complainant had been medical check-up by Opposite Party No.4 at Opposite Party No.1 hospital. As a part of detailed test, the obstetric ultrasound test was conducted upon the reference of Opposite Party No.4 on 03.01.2009 at 5th day of 7th week of pregnancy by Opposite Party No.3 and the report was issued which shows that the condition of foetus is normal. Thereafter, the second obstetric ultrasound test was conducted on 03.02.2009 at 11th week 6th day of pregnancy and the report was issued by Opposite Party No.3 stating that the condition of foetus was very much normal. Thereafter, a
| |
Back
