ORDER

1.       This Revision Petition has been filed by two Doctors – Dr. D. Radhakrishna Reddy & Anr. (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Petitioners / Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2’) against the impugned Order dated 14.11.2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Tirupathi (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in F.A. No. 777/2011, whereby the Appeal filed by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, Tirupati (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”), partly allowing the Complaint, was confirmed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that on 12.09.2009, the Complainant, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the patient’), 19 years of age, got injured when the sunshade at his house fell on his back. The patient was, thereafter, taken to Pragathi Orthopedic General Hospital, Kadapa, where one Dr. B. Ramchandraiah, after examining the patient, detected fracture to the backbone and stated that by medication, the patient can recover within six weeks of bed rest and opposed the necessity of surgery. The patient was discharged on the next day.  Thereafter, the parents of the patient approached Arogyamithra, Kadapa, on referral of which, the patient was admitted in the Opposite Parties’ Hospital – Rama Devi Multi Specialty Hospital, Tirupathi. The Opposite Parties / Doctors sent the patient for medical tests and after seeing the test reports opined that the patient’s spinal cord is fractured and suggested to undergo surgery. The elder brother of the patient asked for time to get the permission from his parents. Surprisingly, on the next day i.e. on 16.09.2009, the elder brother came to know that the surgery had already been performed on the patient without their permission, suspecting it to have been done to get money from the Govt. When inquired with the Opposite Party No. 1 Doctor about the surgery, they were informed not to disturb the patient since he was in anesthesia mode and the surgery was successful. Later, when the patient came out of anesthesia, he couldn’t move his legs. The parents of the patient informed the condition of the patient to the Opposite Party No. 2, who asked them to wait for some time, but even after two days, there was no change in the condition of the patient. It was alleged that the parents pleaded the Opposite Party No. 1 several times for help, but got no clear answer and eventually, on 02.10.2009, they discharged the patient without proper treatment after knowing that the nerves are damaged and it was not possible to recover the same. Thereafter, the patient was taken to some other hospitals, wherefrom they got the same opinion that the patient had a failed surgery from Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2. On 02.11.2009, the patient was got admitted to Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (for short, “NIMS”), Hyderabad for re-surgery, which was done on 07.11.2009. However, on account of improper surgery, the spinal nerve of the patient was damaged and the patient was totally paralyzed below hip. Being aggrieved with the alleged deficiency in service causing damage of spinal nerve and leaving the patient paralyzed with spoilt future, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum and sought a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards medical negligence with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of filing of Complaint.

3.       The Opposite Parties, in their reply, denied negligence during surgery. It was stated that when the Complainant came to the hospital, both legs were not functioning due to the injury sustained and the surgery was performed because it was the necessity. Post-surgery, the normalcy may not be resorted, which would be very slow and take about six months of bed rest. The patient was unnecessarily taken to other hospitals which aggravated the condition of the patient and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with cos