Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/47/07

LANKAPOTHU PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY - Complainant(s)

Versus

POORNIMA MATERNITY AND NURSING HOME - Opp.Party(s)

M/S S SASIDHAR

18 Jan 2010

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. FA/47/07
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. - of District Kurnool)
 
1. LANKAPOTHU PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY
R/O DO NO 74-37-16 RAGHUGARDENS RAOD ASHOK NAGAR VIJAYAWADA
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MR. SRI K. SATYANAND Member
 HONABLE MR. SYED ABDULLAH Member
 
PRESENT:M/S S SASIDHAR , Advocate for the Appellant 1
 M/S K JANARDHAN REDDY , Advocate for the Respondent 1
ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.47 OF 2007 AGAINST C.D.NO.122 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II HYDERABAD

 

Between
Langapothu Praveen Kumar Reddy
S/o L.Narapa Reddy, aged about 28 years
presently R/o C/o B.Subba Reddy
Dr.No.26-32-37, 6th Guntur-004                                              

                       

        1.                        

2.                                

3.                         

                                                       

Counsel for the Appellant           

Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 Counsel for the Respondent No.3

 

QUORUM:    

                                                                              

                                           

                        

 

                                                                               

        

               

It was contended on behalf of the respondent no.1 hospital that the appellant underwent surgery for fracture on 13.11.1999 in respondent no.1 hospital and he came after two years for removal of the implants in the year 2001.   The respondent no.2 performed surgery on the appellant and attended to post operative treatment as also he advised for discharge of the appellant on 23.11.1999.       

                   

             There was no deficiency in service of the part of the respondent no.2.  

        

        

       

             

The grievance of the appellant is that after the operation he reported pain and difficulty to walk for which the respondent no.2 as also respondent no.1 informed him that pain will subside in due course. When he approached the respondent no.1 hospital in the month of August 2001 for removal of implants, they were removed and even after removal of the implants, the pain has not subsided.    At this stage, the appellant has filed an application in I.A.No.421 of 2005 to refer him to an expert orthopedician for his opinion in regard to the operation and mode of treatment given to him by the respondent no.2 in the respondent no.1 hospital.  

The appellant contends that had the District Forum allowed the application he would have been referred to an expert who would have expressed his opinion on the negligence and deficiency in service committed by the respondents.   

In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District forum.   

                                                                                                                                                            KMK*

 
 
[HONABLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MR. SRI K. SATYANAND]
Member
 
[HONABLE MR. SYED ABDULLAH]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.