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*