BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER
Thursday, 04th day of May 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 69 / 2016
Siva Prasad, S/o Subbanarasaiah,
aged about 40 years, Hindu, Residing at
D.No. 5/59, Brahmin Street, Kadapa – 516 001,
Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
Dr. U. Shyam Sundar Rao, Consltant Radiologist,
Image Diagnostic Centre, D.No. 3/153,
Opp. Zilla Panchayat Office, Christian Lane,
Kadapa – 516 001, Kadapa District. ………Opposite party.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 13-4-2017 in the presence of Sri P.S. Balasubramanyam, Advocate for Complainant and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The Complainant suffered with severe stomach pain on 10-4-2016, he had consulted Dr. G. Chandra Mohan Reddy, Aneesha Gastro and Laproscopy Hospital, Kadapa for proper treatment. The said Dr. G. Chandra Mohan Reddy, advised the Complainant to take the scanning of the abdomen, from Opposite party diagnostic centre. As per the advice of Dr. G. Chandra Mohan Reddy, the Complainant has came to the opposite party’s diagnostic centre on 10-4-2016 and a detailed scan report was given to him stating that the real time Ultrasonography of Abdomen that he is suffering with mild Hydronephrosis. Basing on the scan report dt. 10-4-2016, the doctor started treatment for a period of 7 days, after using medicines also the Complainant suffered with repeated severe stomach pain. On 14-4-2016 the Complainant had consulted Dr. T. Dinakar Reddy, and referred to Medall Diagnostic Centre, to CT-Scan of KUB – PLAIN and given a scan report that the infection was found in the Complainant’s abdomen and suggested clinical correlation and contrast study for further evaluation. On 19-4-2016 Dr. Chandra Mohan Reddy, had referred to the Complainant to Sri Lakshmi Scans, Kadapa for Ultrsonography of Abdomen of the Complainant. The said Sri Lakshmi Scans, Kadapa had given a detailed scan report by stating that the impression is ‘Early Philegmon Formation in Rif due to Appendicular Perfortion at Tip’. Basing on the false scan report dt. 10-4-2016 the Complainant suffered with severe infection in his abdomen, the scan report given by Sri Lakshmi Scans, dt. 19-4-2016 doctor continued treatment to the Complainant.
3. Again on 9-5-2016 Dr. Chandramohan Reddy referred the Complainant to Sree Devi Scan Centre, Kadapa for “Real Time Ultra Sonography of Complete Abdomen’ and diagnosed that the impression is suggestive of appendicular Pathology. Basing the scan report on 9-5-2016 given by the Sreedevi Scan Centre, Kadapa the Complainant underwent open Appendectomy Surgery by Dr. G. Chandra Mohan Reddy on 11-5-2016 and the Complainant has incurred expenses for the surgery and the medicines of Rs. 60,000/- and the Complainant discharged on 13-5-2016 and the doctor prescribed medicines to the Complainant for a week. The Complainant issued legal notice to the Respondent and the Respondent had given reply notice also. The Complainant filed this complaint before the Hon’ble forum praying this forum to grant (a) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation, mental agony and for the expenses incurred forum treatment due to imporper and false scan report, dt. 10-4-2016, (b) to direct the opposite party to pay the expenses of the complaint and (c) grant such other reliefs or reliefs as the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
4. Counter filed by opposite party that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The Complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations which are not expressly admittedly herein by the opposite party.
5. It is true that the opposite party issued a scanning report dt. 10-4-2016 such allegations are denied the Complainant failed to mentioned about the treatment taken from Dr. T. Dinakar Reddy in his complaint. The Complainant had not proved that he had suffered with severe infection in his abdomen. The Complainant approached the opposite party with scanning report dt. 14-4-2016 from Medall and another report dt. 19-4-2016 from Sri Lakshmi Scans, Kadapa and asked for clarification and that he gave evasive replied is false. The Complainant incurred expenses is baseless and contra to the contents of documents filed along with the complaint. As seen from the document No. 8 filed along with complaint, medical and expenditure certificate dt. 10-4-2016 issued by Dr. G. Chandra Mohan Reddy is it crystal clear that the Complainant was treated for appendicular mass and was underwent for surgery – open appendicectomy and not for any infection caused by the medicines given for hydronephrosis as alleged in the complaint. As per the contents of document No. 2, that the doctor had given pain killer injection to the Complainant. The Complainant had treated for more than one month with Dr. T. Dinakar Reddy, those treated proper parties to the Complainant. There are no bonafidies on the part of the Complainant and opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by them or not?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party or not?
- To what relief?
7. On behalf of complainant PW1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A12 were marked and on behalf of opposite party RW1 was examined and Ex. B1 and B2 were marked.
8. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The Complainant filed compliant without clarity and he had not filed the report of treatment taken by Dr. T. Dinakar Reddy. After scanning report i.e. Ex. A1 the Complainant had so many scanning after few days of the respondent report and no where the Complainant is not mentioned about the treatment of Dr. T. Dinakar Reddy, had not filed any piece of evidence of Dr. T. Dinakar Reddy and he had used some pain killers prescribed by other doctors. All the documentary evidence filed by the Complainant did not support his case. At the same time the Complainant utterly failed to prove the negligence of the opposite party. So the Complainant is not eligible for compensation as prayed by him as there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.
9. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th day of May 2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant :
PW1 Sri Siva Prasad, dt. 27-1-2017.
For Opposite parties :
RW1 Dr. U. Syam Sunder Rao, dt. 17-3-2017
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex.A1 Original scan report dated 10-04-2016, given by the respondent.
Ex.A2 Original medical prescription dated 10-04-2016, Prescribed by
Dr G.Chandra Mohan Reddy.
Ex.A3 Original CT-Scan report, dated 14-04-2016, given by the medical
Diagnostic Center, Kadapa.
Ex.A4 P/c of cash bill for Rs.3,500/- dated 14-04-2016, given by the medical
Diagnostic Center, Kadapa.
Ex.A5 Original Scan report, dated 19-04-2016, given by the Sri Lakshmi Scans,
Kadapa.
Ex.A6 Original medical prescription given by the Dr G.Chandra Mohan Reddy,
Dated 23-04-2016.
Ex.A7 Original Scan report, dated 09-05-2016, given by the Sreedevi Scan center, Kadapa.
Ex.A8 Original Medical certificate, dated 10-04-2016, given by the Dr G.Chandra
Mohan Reddy,
Ex.A9 Original medical prescription dated 13-05-2016, Prescribed by the Dr
G.Chandra Mohan Reddy,
Ex.A10 The office copy of legal notice, dated 24-04-2016.
Ex.A11 The original postal Acknowledgement
Ex.A12 The Original copy of Replay legal notice, dated 03-05-2016. Issued
through the respondent’s counsel.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party: -
Ex. B1 P/c of reply notice dt. 3-5-2016 issued by the opposite party to the
Complainant and to his counsel.
Ex. B2 Two postal receipt and one Ack. Card.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri P.S. Balasubramanyam, Advocate for Complainant.
- Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for opposite party.
B.V.P
