QUEEN, NRI HOSPITAL vs B. RAMA KRISHNA RAO

THE unsuccessful opposite parties in O.P. No. 549/95 on the file of the District Forum, Visakhapatnam, are the appellants before this Commission.

THE facts in brief are the complainant met with an accident on 13.6.1995 at about 10.00 p.m. and was admitted in the hospital of the first opposite party. After admitting the complainant, the hospital authorities rendered first aid and informed him that an Orthopaedic doctor, the second opposite party, would attend on him on the next day. On 14.6.1995 after examining the X-rays the complainant was asked to purchase plaster bandage, padding, cotton, crape bandage for applying bandage to the injured parts and informed him that there was a fracture of left collar bones and left side ribs and the fractures were bandaged and he was kept under observation till 19.6.1995. THE second opposite party asked him to come to his residence and after taking Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant issued a receipt for Rs. 500/-. On 5.7.1995 (sic) as the pain was unbearable and the bandage has become loose, he went to the first opposite party hospital for checkup.

Another X-ray on the left collar bone was taken and was informed that there was not expected change in the position of the fractured collar bone and was asked to come on 10.7.1995 for a minor operation.

AS the pain has become unbearable on 7.7.1995 the complainant approached Dr. C. Lakshminarayana, who after examining both the X-rays, advised that an operation is inevitable and conducted surgery and the complainant spent Rs. 12,000/- towards nursing home, etc. The negligence and inefficiency of the second opposite party led the complainant to suffer pain and mental agony. He approached the District Forum. The second opposite party filed its written version denying of his taking any fees and admitted that on 14.6.1995 at 3.00 p.m. he has seen the complainant and noticed fracture of ribs on the left side of the chest with surgical emphysema and treated him conservatively without opting for surgery and advised him, to see him after ten days for checkup. Had the complainant turned up on 10.7.1995, he would have conducted a minor surgery and there was no negligence on his part.

BASING on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation with interest at 15 per cent per annum if the amount is not paid within two months from the date of its order. Aggrieved by the said finding and order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

THE facts which are not in dispute are the complainant met with an accident on 13.6.1995 at 10.00 p.m. and sustained fractures. He went to the first opposite party hospital on the same day and on the next day he was examined by the second opposite party. THE second opposite party applied bandage and asked him to see him again on 10.7.1995. As the bandage became loose, he again went to the first opposite party hospital on 7.7.1995 (sic) and he was advised to come on 10.7.1995 for a minor surgery. As the pain was unbearable, he went to one Dr. C. Lakshminarayana, Prof. and Head of the Deptt. of Orthopaedics, Andhra Medical College, Orthopaedic Surgeon K.G.H., Visakhapatnam, who advised him that a minor surgery is inevitable and conducted the said surgery.

THE defence of the second opposite party is that he treated him conservatively. Dr. C. Lakshminarayana, who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, by examining X-ray, Ex. A-2 and the bandage applied over the surgery without any operation expressed his opinion that the bone fragments are widely separated and their union is not possible without internal fixation. After two days, the complainant went to the first opposite party''s hospital and X-ray Ex. A-6 was taken and then only he was informed that an operation was necessary and he was advised to come on 10.7.1995. THE complainant was suffering with pain all these days. Only after he again went to Dr. C. Lakshminarayana he was operated upon on 8.7.1995 in St. Joseph''s Hospital and his bones were set properly and the pain has subsided and the bones have united. By a mere look at the Ex. A-2, it can be said that the fracture required surgery for setting the bones properly. THEre was negligence on the part of opposite parties and the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint. We find no merits in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed with costs.