Lingampally Yadagiri S/o Pentaiah,
Aged about: 29 years, Occ. STD Booth,

R/o Bharath Nagar Colony, Siddipet Town,

Medak District. … Complainant


1. Gayathri Maternity and Nursing Home,

Shivaji Nagar, Siddipet, Rep. By

Dr. V. Gayathri Devi @ Dr. V. Ravindranath.



2. Ravi Nursing Home,

Bharath Nagar, Siddipet, Rep. By

Dr. Ch. Ramchander Rao and Dr. Rama Devi.



3. Indian Medical Association,

A.P. State Br. Professional,

Protection and Welfare Scheme,

I.M.A. Building, Sulthan Bazar, Koti,

Hyderabad. ….Opposite parties

This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for praying the forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 9,50,000/- as compensation an amount of death of Smt. Sunitha due to the negligence treatment by the opposite parties jointly and severally and also pay Rs.40,000/- costs of litigation and pass such other order in the interest justice and equity.

The brief facts of the complainant are that the complainant resident of Bharathi Nagar Colony, Siddipet Town, Medak District. The complainant married Sunitha, the deceased in the case in hand, on 21.02.1999. Deceased Sunitha was a Government Teacher worked at Kondapaka Mandal and was living at Bharathi Nagar Colony at Siddipet Town, Medak District along with her husband the complainant herein. In the course of time Smt. Sunitha was pregnant and thereby consulted the opposite party No. 1 (Doctor) for check up in the early days of pregnancy.



The complainant further stated that the opposite party No. 1 in the month of Sunitha pregnancy thoroughly examined her and opined that Mrs. Sunitha uterous is enlarged therefore the opposite party No. 1 conducted operation and stitched uterous after this surgery Mrs. Sunitha was being checked up by Dr. Gayathri Devi Periodically monthly. After completion of 9th month on 03.01.2005 Mrs. Sunitha consulted Dr. Gayathri Devi thereupon Dr. Gayathri Devi removed the stitches on uterous of Mrs. Sunitha and prescribed few medicines and advised to use that tablets without fail. Accordingly Mrs. Sunitha consumed tablets prescribed by Dr. Gayathri Devi. It is further stated that at about 1 ‘O’ clock in the night Mrs. Sunitha was experienced severe pain at uterous cervic from where the stitches have been removed. The complainant was admitted his wife Mrs. Sunitha in Gayathri Nursing Home in that night itself. The opposite party No. 1 examined Sunitha and injected ciline but did not take amount of care and vigilance, which the patient of such condition need. After that the opposite party No. 1 did not turn up and did not checkup the condition of the patient of full pregnant. All the night the Dr Gayathri Devi was left patient alone.



The complainant further stated that on 04.01.2005 at about 10:00 A.M the complainant requested Dr. Gayathri Devi to come down and checkup the patient the opposite party No. 1 examined the patient and recommended E.C.G. test to be conducted at that Dr. Ramachandra Rao and Dr. Smt. Rama Devi of Ravi Nursing Home at Bharath Nagar, Siddipet. At the time of ECG test Smt. Sunitha was gone into unconscious state of condition. The complainant shifted the patient to opposite party No. 2 Nursing Home and the doctors therein have conducted ECG and other tests for 2 hours thereafter advised the complainant to take the patient to Hyderabad for treatment as the condition of the patient is critical and danger. Also suggested that the treatment at Hyderabad will cost upto Rs. 1,00,000/- as such get ready with Rs. 1,00,000/- otherwise he will have to loose the patient Sunitha. But, by that time Smt. Sunitha died in the Hospital (Opposite party No. 2) due to the negligence of Dr Gayathri Devi, Dr.Ravindranath ,Dr. Ramachandra Rao and Dr. Smt Rama Devi of Gayathri and Ravi Nursing Home.That, Smt. Sunitha was hale and healthy before her stitches were being removed by Dr. Gayatri Devi.

There was no-complaint regarding her health by the Doctor. The death of Smt. Sunitha is the result of the negligence of and irresponsible behavior of the Dr. Gayathri Devi and Dr. Ramachandra Rao services rendered by the Doctors are not in proportionate to the fee paid to them. Therefore, Dr. Gayathri Devi and Dr. Ravinder Rao and Smt. Rama Devi of Ravi Nursing Home Siddipet Town, have committed an offence by neglecting the patient resulted in death. The complainant herein lodged a complaint before the SHO Siddipet-I on 04.01.2005 and the Police Registered a case against the above named Doctors in Crime No. 04/2005, U/S. 304-A of IPC, and the case is pending before the JFCM at Siddipet. Hence the complaint.

The opposite party No. 1 filed counter stating that the allegations made in the complaint are vague, false, and invented for the purpose of present complaint.

The deceased Sunitha approached Dr. Gayathri Devi in February, 2004 after suffering abortion. She conceived while undergoing treatment with Dr. Gayathri Devi – opposite party No. 1. body constitution of deceased was prone to B.P., Cervical entrance found dilated knows as “CERVICAL INCOMPETENCE” due to which there was possibility of miscarriage. As such on attaining 18 weeks “CERCLAGE STITCH” was made on “CERVIX, not on overy as alleged.

It is stated that the deceased Sunitha attained 9th month, cerclage stitch was removed on 03.01.2005 as the same was not required further. Kept in observation for half an hour, advised to take total rest, and to approach any qualified doctor in case of urgency. The allegation that the deceased was admitted in Gayathri Maturnity Nursing Home on 03.01.2005, night is false. It is equally false to allege that Dr. Gayathri Devi did not take required care, went to bed and did not attend patient till 10 am on 04.01.2005. Infact Dr. Gayathri Devi since beginning treated the patient with utmost most care. It is in-correct to allege that Dr. Gayathri Devi checked up the patient, and recommended patient to Dr. Ramchander Rao for E.C.G. In gact Dr. Gayathri Devi did not attend O.P, and patients on 01.04.2005 in view of her journey to Aurangabad to attend 48th All India Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology, held on 5th January, 2005. The deceased was suffering with “Pregnancy Induced Hypertension – P.I.H.,”. She was advised complete bed rest. But she was most negligent of herself and her health. She used strain herself, besides attending her regular job, as the result she suffered EDEMA. There was no negligence on the part of any of the doctors. The O.P. prescription slips, E.C.G. and other documents filed along with complaint substantiate the efforts put by doctors to save the patient.

Death of deceased is purely accidental eventuality; the same can not be controlled or avoided. It is further stated that the opposite party No. 1 is treated to the deceased all the ways on free of cost nothing was charged. And also stated that the opposite party No. 1 is subscriber of indemnity / insurance policy conducted by Indian Medical Association, A.P. State Branch, in the name and style of “Professional Protection and Welfare Scheme” which covers the claims as against opposite party No. 1 vide Membership No. S6/0004/00901/ME114/2000-01 under scheme - 2, for period from 09.08.2002 to 08.08.2007. As such the Indian Medical Association, A.P. State Branch is proper and necessary party. Hence pleaded that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the opposite party No. 1 and also non-joinder of necessary party. Hence the complaint dismissed with costs.

The opposite party No. 2 filed counter stating that no cause of action to complainant as against this opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is made with obligue motive. With regard to allegations made against opposite party No. 1 this opposite party No. 2 has no obligation to answer. On 04.01.2005. Dr. Ramadevi – opposite party No. 2 was in out patients room, at about 10.30 A.M. she was informed about deceased- Sunitha, brought by complainant, as her condition appeared serious, taken to labour room, Dr. Ramadevi attending her, took clinical history, she was drowsy, and irritable, face and limbs swollen, B.P. was 170/120 with 34 to 36 weeks gestation. Fetal heart sounds present, while Dr. Ramadevi attending patient she developed convulsions, immediately emergency medication administered, Foleys catheter inserted urine was Red in colour.

General condition was serious, immediately advised the complainant ot shift the patient to Higher Medical center for further management. Dr. Ramchander Rao at complainants request attended the patient, evaluated condition of patient for diagnosis and further management. His observation revealed that platelet count was low, S. BILIRUBIN, SGPT AND ALKALINE PHOSPHATASE values were high, abnormal liver function, blood pressure was high indicating ECLAMPSIA a critical serious complications of “Pregnancy Induced Hypertension” a very rare condition, carries maternal and fetal mortality, which can be managed at TERTIARY MEDICAL CARE CENTER. As such advised the complainant to shift the patient to Hyderabad without any delay.

While the complainant was making arrangements, the patient suffered Cardio-Pulmonary failure, Emergency Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation-CPR started but patient was not reactive to treatment. The opposite party No. 2 put their every effort to save the patient. There was no negligence and deficiency in service, as alleged. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

The opposite party No. 1 and 2 filed counters, the same is adopted by the opposite party No. 3.

Heard both sides.

Whether there is medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 as alleged?

The both parties have filed there affidavits, written arguments and documents filed as Exs. A1 to A7 on behalf of the complainant. Exs. B1 to B7 are marked on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 and Ex. B8 is marked on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation as prayed for?

The contention of the complainant is that on 03.01.2005 after completion of 9th month, Mrs. Sunitha – deceased, consulted Dr. Gayathri Devi – opposite party no. 1, there upon Dr. Gayathri Devi removed the stitches on ovary, prescribed few medicines, and advised to use the medicines. The same day at about 1 “O” clock in night the deceased Sunitha developed severe pain, at Uterus, where from stitches removed, as such she was admitted in the same night in Gayathri Maternity Nursing Home of opposite party No. 1 Dr. Gayathri Devi examined the deceased, injected “CELINE” but did not take care and vigilance, required to be taken, till next morning 10 “O” clock, left the patient untreated. On 04.01.2005 at 10 A.M. when complainant requested, Dr. Gayathri came and examined Sunitha the deceased, and referred to Dr. Ramachander Rao for E.C.G. by that time the deceased Sunitha gone into unconscious state of condition.

Exs A1 and A2 are prescription slips to have given by Dr. Gayathri Devi & Dr. Ramadevi. Ex. A3 is F.I.R. lodged by complainant in P.S. Siddipet – I (T) wherein the complainant alleged that on 03.01.2005 his wife deceased Sunitha under gone treatment with opposite party No. 1, the stitches on cervix were removed, without any proper care, and treated in negligent manner, as the result deceased Sunitha developed pains at night hours in stomach, where from stitches removed, at about 12 ‘O’ clock midnight he took the deceased to Dr. Gayathri Devi – opposite party No. 1. She checked up, and gave wrong medicine & the medicine adversely reacted and her condition went serious, as such again took the deceased Sunitha to Dr. Gayathri Devi on 04.01.2005 in early hours at about 8 A.M. by that time deceased Sunitha went un-conscious, Dr. Gayathri to conceal her mistake in treating the patient referred to Ramadevi Nursing Home.

The deposition of opposite party No. 1 Dr. Gayatri Devi was examined in chief through affidavit U/O 18 Rule (4) of CPC wherein she stated that she applied cerclage stitch on the uterus cervix of Sunitha to avoid miscarriage and thereafter treated her periodically and counseling was given about precautions. During pregnancy Sunitha had complaint of P.I.H. “OEDEMA” and they have, inspite of her best efforts, not cured and carried out the problem till Sunitha attains 9th months in pregnancy. On 03.01.2005 Dr. Gayatri Devi removed ceclage stitch. Advised Sunitha to take complete rest at home. Thereafter proceeded to Aurangabad. Hence there is no negligence from her side. Moreover Dr. Gayatri Devi deposed, that she has treated Sunitha free of cost entire period and entertained Sunitha as privileged patient as her husband the complainant is associated with B.S.P. Party.

Further stated that on 03.01.2005 she was not available in the Nursing Home, as herself and Dr. Ravindra Nath were moving to Aurangabad to attend AICOG 2005 scheduled from 06.01.2005. But the exhibit B4 Rail Reservation Ticket discloses that the Doctors started from Secunderabad to Aurangabad on 04.01.2005 at 5:45 P.M. which means the doctor was very much available in the Hospital upto 04.01.2005 afternoon. Secondly the doctors (opposite party No. 1) have reserved up and down tickets (Exs. B4 and B5) at Secunderabad for 04.01.2005 and 08.01.2005. Actually the conference schedule from 06.01.2005 to 09.01.2005. The exhibits B6 clearly shows that the doctors did not prefer to attend conference initially. But tried to use it as a shield to protect them from the negligence in treating the patient Sunitha, opposite party No. 1 doctor, otherwise protecting herself from the clutches of law under the shelter of AIOCG-2005 conference.

Further contention that opposite party No. 2 doctor RW-3 Rama Devi in her cross examination revealed that as per the case sheet shown to her RW-1 is the doctor who treated the patient earlier. Also answered that “It is true that the blood pressure in pregnancy is called pregnancy induced Hypertention (P.I.H). It is true that it can be controlled by treatment. It is true that chances of premature delivery can not be ruled out in P.I.H. cases. It is true that there are chances to develop Eclampsia in P.I.H. cases. Further answered to question that “OEDEMA” is not a complicated problem. By looking into above answers it is clearly understandable that P.I.H., “OEDEMA” and Eclampsia are not complicated diseases. Hence death will not be caused for these complaints ultimately one can say that opposite party No. 1 doctor has not taken proper care from the beginning in treating the patient Sunitha, she had been does so the death of Sunitha would not have been occasioned. Opposite party No. 1 doctor failed to extend required care against pregnant Sunitha entire period under the pretext that she is giving free of charge treatment. Therefore contributed in multiplying the serious condition when Sunitha being brought to the Nursing Home (opposite party No. 1) in the intervening night of 04.01.2005 and neglected to give suitable medical aid in the name of conference. Thus opposite party No. 1 doctor has committed the act of negligence in extending proper treatment when the patient need.

Post Mortem and FSL Report is very clear and categorical that death was due to cardio vascular accident leading to brain hemorrhage. It is also clear from the record that deceased was young lady of 22 years having no cardiac problem at all. Because of negligence of doctor in treatment at one part and wasting valuable time in the name of useless tests on the second part of doctors, internal bleeding was started in the body and that was led to cardiac accident consequently patient died.

For clarity about pregnancy induced hypertension the following literature is filed here to for kind perusal.

1. HIGH RISK PREGNANCY – Management Options, Second Edition – Edited by D.K. James, PJ Steer, C P Weiner, B. Gonik, Page No. 639 to 663.

2. Williams Obstetrics – Eighteenth Edition – Edited by F. Gary Cunningham, M.D. – Page No. 653 to 688.

3. OBSTETRIC & GYNECOLOGIC EMERGENCIES – Diagnosis and Management: Volume – I – Edited by Mark D. Pearlman, Judith E. Tintianlli, Pamela L. Dyne – Page No. 96 to 103.

4. 2008 (1) ALD (Cons) 19 N.C.

5. 2008 (4) ALD (Cons) 1 N.C.

We gone through the counter affidavits and written arguments of both sides and perusal of records. The deceased has not under gone any medical operation of stomach she was hale and healthy till the stitches removed. All deposition shows that complainant wife suffered from acute pain in curvix admitted in opposite party No. 1 Hospital. Although her condition deteriorated and it become critical. As per the contention of the opposite party No. 1 departure for Aurangabad conference leaving on at the mercy of non of the professionals to give her some treatment. The opposite party No. 2 just an MBBS came in record they were not competent to treat her showing lack of professional support in the Hospital even the patient medical record not proper. The RW-1 deposed in his version the conference was concluded on 5 to 9th of January, 2005, than left for Hyderabad from my residence on 03.01.2005 at 4:00 P.M. and also disclosed there are any serious cases we don’t go any where. Further contended that on that day night the patient was not brought to my clinic infact I was not available in my Hospital as I went to conference even in the next day she was not brought to my Hospital.

The opposite party No. 1 and 2 accepting the words PIH can lead to fits. PIH it self is abnormal. The complainant is not filed any receipt became of as she has not habit of issuing such receipt. The complainant could not produced any pertaining to this case expert opinion. As such the above circumstance we allowing the complainant holding that removing of stitches. Opposite party No. 1 was not taken any precautions and proper advise not given to the patient as well as left the serious condition of patient whereas the attending conference in Aurangabad on 5 to 9th January, 2005 which is accepted in RW1 evidence opposite party No. 2 sympathetically admitted and set up the treatment with in his purview and advised to go higher hospital. No negligence upon the opposite party No. 2, the opposite party No. 1 could not escape from their responsibility not even a whisper in the discharge slip that the patient took discharge against medical advice. Clearly the patient reasonable degree of care in treating the patient not exercised by her.

By all means it was an irresponsible act on the part of the opposite party No. 1. Doctor not proving her grass negligence and deficiency in service contributed to her death. In this case no need to file any expert opinion. Because of proof of the Ex.B1 to B5 clearly showing that attended the AICOG 2005on 5 to 9th January, 2005. The above said citations filed by the opposite party is not relevant to this case. All the facts considering the deceased age, education and job taking in to account other relevant aspects the complainant is entitle for the part of the compensation as prayed. Hence relaying upon the citations filed by the complaint the complainant is rightly allowed with costs.

The opposite party No. 1 is subscriber of indemnity / insurance policy conducted by Indian Medical Association, A.P. State Branch, in the name and style of “Professional Protection and Welfare Scheme” which covers the claims as against opposite party No. 1 vide Membership No. S6/0004/00901/ME114/2000-01 under scheme - 2, for period from 09.08.2002 to 08.08.2007. Hence the opposite party No. 3 is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant which is done grass negligence of the opposite party No. 1.



In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to compensation and also pay Rs. 5,000/- compensation towards cost of this complaint. This order shall be comply within one month from the date of receipt this order. The CC against of opposite party No. 2 is dismissed.