T Rama Devi vs Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Hospital

THE facts in brief are that the complainant, Smt. T. Rama Devi was suffering from severe pain in her left leg. She took treatment from Dr. K. S. Ashok Kumar (OP 2) at the OP 1, Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Hospital from 21.10.2004 to 24.12.2004. The OP 2 conducted blood tests, x -ray of spine and prescribed medicines but no avail. During the course of treatment, OP 2 changed the prescription. It was alleged that OP was doing trial and error method.

WHEN the complainant did not get any relief, she approached Osmania General Hospital on 27.12.2004, got admitted under Dr. Y. Surender Rao, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, as an in -patient. The doctors at Osmania General Hospital observed that the OP 2 treated wrongly and the X -ray was not correct. Because of the said negligence of OP 2, the complainant approached A.P. Human Rights Commission(APHRC) on 17.5.2006 with a prayer to direct the APSRTC to provide stationary job. APHRC advised the complainant to approach the consumer forum for redressal of her grievances. Hence, she filed a complaint before the District Forum, Hyderabad. The District Forum, Hyderabad dismissed the complaint and further the appeal filed by the complainant was also dismissed by the A. P. State Commission. Hence, this revision petition.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage. There is delay of 121 days in filing this revision petition. The counsel brought our attention to the application for condonation of delay and submitted that it was not an intentional delay. The delay is explained in paras 3 and 4 of the application, which read as under: "3. It is submitted with respect that the said delay so occasioned in preferring the accompanying present petition is attributable to the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner lady who acted bona fide with utmost sincerity and with highest degree of promptitude in prosecuting her case throughout with due diligence and care. However, it took some time to arrange and process the things including fund raising in laying up the present revision petition to the effect of consulting the Delhi based lawyer to appear and arrange on behalf of the petitioner before this Hon''ble Commission hence the delay."

It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is a patient undergoing treatment under the medical supervision of one Dr. A. Bharatprakash who has certified that the petitioner is to continue treatment with effect from 01.06.2014 to 30.11.2014 under the said doctor."

We are not satisfied with the explanation given by learned counsel for the complainant. Further, we have perused the order of Human Right Commission dated 5.10.2006. There is nothing, like any direction or any advice to the complainant to approach the consumer forum for redressal of her grievances. APHRC gave direction to the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of APSRTC to consider her request to post her in stationary job and dispose of her representation.

ON merits, the counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the OP has wrongly treated the patient. He was doing trial and error in the treatment of the complainant. Hence, the complainant was not cured.

WE have perused the medical records of OP 1, hospital and the Osmania Hospital also. After investigation, the OP 2 diagnosed her case as low backache due to Intra Vertabral Disc prolapse (IV DP). Accordingly, he treated her with the anti -inflammatory and analgesic drugs, which was a proper treatment in the case of low backache.

IT is pertinent to note that the complainant/petitioner approached OP on 24.12.2004 and she visited Osmania Hospital on 27.12.2004. Therefore, she was known about the alleged deficiency of service during the treatment by the OP. Hence, the cause of action arose on 24.12.2004 or 27.12.2004. Thus, the limitation for filing the complaint will be up to 27.12.2006. The complainant filed a complaint on 30.5.2011 i.e. after more than four years. Even the complainant approached APHRC on 14.5.2009, it was also after three years. Hence, both the fora dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. Even the Human Rights Commission also not observed any negligence on the part of the OP in giving treatment and prescribing medicines. The complainant has not examined any medical expert also.

WE have perused the medical record. The OP took X -ray and necessary investigations and treated the patient for low backache for the period of 2 -3 months. The treatment was proper. She was subsequently diagnosed as a TB spine. We are of the considered view that it was not a medical negligence. The OP treated the patient with his clinical acumen. Thereafter, the patient went to Osmania General Hospital where he was diagnosed Pott''s spine and she was under treatment.

THE complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum after lapse of 5 years. Hence, as per Section 24 of the Limitation Act, it is also barred by time.

CONSIDERING the entirety of the case, the complaint is barred by time, secondly, we do not find any negligence on the part of the OP 2 in the diagnoses and treatment, and thirdly, there is huge delay in filing this revision petition. Hence, we dismiss this revision which is having no merit and limitation.