FA.No.150/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.479/2003 DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD.

Between:

Deshapande Raghavendra Rao

S/o.late D.Ramchander Rao

Aged about 60 years,

Occ:Retd.Govt. Employee

R/o.H.No.254, MIG-1,

EDIRA Village,

A.P.Housing Board Colony

Mahaboobnagar. Appellant/

Complainant

And

C.D.R.Hospitals,

Hyderguda, Hyderabad. Respondent/ Opposite party.



Counsel for the Complainant: M/s.M.Hari Babu



Counsel for the Respondents. Mr.N.Tirumala Ramarao.



QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER

&

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN


(Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
***

This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum seeking the entire relief as prayed by him in the complaint.

The facts of the case stated briefly are as follows:

According to the complainant, he fell down from an easy chair at Sangareddy at his friend’s house and developed pain in the left hand arm on 2-7-2002 (sic 2001). Immediately he was admitted in a local nursing home and took treatment. As the pain was unbearable on the same day he was taken to the opposite party hospital where he admitted himself for further treatment. According to him, he was treated with plaster of paris on the left hand and slowly his entire palm became black. He developed further complications then he complained that he was suddenly discharged on 6-7-2001 with incomplete treatment. The discharge report on the other hand stated that there was immediate relief, the left swelling hematoma was under local anaesthesia etc., After discharge he went to the house of his relatives with the belief that the pain subsided; but soon the pain increased and he was sleepless that night. On 7-7-2001 the complainant came to the hospital and again met Dr.Gopala Ra, Neurophysician who treated him earlier and an emergency Doppler study was done. In pursuance thereof the doctors discussed among themselves and the complainant was referred to Nizams Medical Sciences. The opposite party failed to identify the disease as embolism though they conducted many tests. Had the opposite party identified it, they could have conducted embolectomy operation on the very day itself and his left hand would have been saved. On the other hand, he was treated at NIMS till 15-7-2001 as he was diagnosed as suffering from UL ischemia but as his pain not reduced, he appeared to have contacted NIMS again on 19-7-2001 and the doctors after examination, recommended amputation of his left hand. On 27-7-2001 his left hand was amputated and he was discharged on 1-8-2001. Thus it was his case that the initial mishandling and negligence of the opposite party led to amputation, therefore, he preferred the complaint for compensation.

The case came to be resisted by the opposite party who filed a counter denying the allegations made against it. It was its case that no plaster of paris as contended was applied and the palm became black on 2-7-2001 itself and a neuro physician by name Dr.V.Gopala Rao examined him and found him with hemotoma first web space etc. The x-ray of left hand revealed no bone fracture. They attended upon the patient and was shifted to operation theatre and aspiration was done under local anaesthesia. His condition became stable and reported less pain therefore he was discharge on 6-7-2001. There was no negligence nor incomplete treatment. On 7-7-2001 he approached the opposite party again complaining pain in the left hand, the doctor there suspected ischemia of fingers and referred the patient to A.S.Rao, Orthopedic Surgeon. They ultimately referred him to NIMS for vascular surgery. The allegations were baseless. As a matter of fact by identifying the embolism they saved his life the opposite party doctors claimed. Thus the claim was untenable according to them.

In support of his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A18. The opposite party also got filed an affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.B1 to B12.

On a consideration of the evidence, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove negligence and more particularly made a remark that the complainant suppressed that the injury was one month old even by the date of his admission on 2-7-2001 in the opposite party hospital as per Ex.B2, discharge note and dismissed the complaint for want of proper evidence including that of an expert to make out a case of negligence against the opposite party.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present appeal repeating the allegation of negligence against the opposite party that the complications had set in quick succession proving the negligence on the part of the opposite party and the fact that a surgery was necessitated within a short time added to the said proof which the District Forum failed to take note of.

Heard both sides.

The point for consideration is:

Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?

The complainant averred in the complaint that he fell from an easy chair on 2-7-2001 and on that very day itself he went to the opposite party and the opposite party was so negligent that the condition of his left hand worsened in quick succession necessitating the amputation. But as rightly pointed out by the District Forum, he deliberately suppressed the most important fact that he received injury one month prior to 2-7-2001 as evident from Ex.B2, B3 and B8. Though he referred to discharge record of opposite party in his complaint, he deliberately suppressed the same and it is the opposite party that filed the said discharge notes and got it marked as Ex.B2. it is not the case of the complainant that the entire B series especially B2, B3 and B8 were fabricated. No doubt the opposite party failed to mention about this historical fact in its counter. But the fact remains that the medical record filed by opposite party did not bear any signs of concoction. So the fall occurred one month prior to the date of admission and there was no fracture as such. The story of PIP also turned out to be false as there was absolutely no reference to that either in A series or B series. It is not in dispute that the complainant was a known hypertensive. The neglect of the injury for one month could have caused the onset of embolism and developed into ischemia and then a condition necessitating the amputation of the left hand. In any view of the matter, in the absence of any concrete internal evidence, the requirement of the examination of an expert is indispensable in matters of identifying the medical negligence especially in view of the latest law that came to be accorded judicial recognition by the highest court of the land. This case of the complainant suffers from the want of expert evidence as the complainant totally relied upon the rule of res ipsa loquitur and for that purpose he deliberately suppressed an important fact that the injury was one month old even by the date of his admission into the opposite party hospital. He also came up with another falsehood that the opposite party applied POP. On the other hand there is evidence to show that an Orthopedic surgeon by name A.S.Rao gave a finding that there was no fracture. In the absence of any facture no doctor would apply POP bandage. Thus we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint was rightly dismissed. In other words there are no merits in the appeal.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but without costs in the circumstances of the case.