Case nº Revision Petition No. 4436 Of 2010, (Against the Order dated 08/09/2010 in Appeal No. 1491/2007 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) of NCDRC Cases, September 20, 2016 (case . Dr. G.V.S. Rao Vs 1. K. Chinna Reddy and Anr. 2. Smt. K. Lalitha)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mrs. Radha Rao, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. D. Devender Rao, Advocate
PresidentMr. K.S. Chaudhari,Presiding Member and Mr. Prem Narain,Member
Resolution DateSeptember 20, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases


  1. Aggrieved with the order dated 8.9.2010 of the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short "the State Commission") passed in FA No.1491 of 2007, the petitioner Dr. G.V.S. Rao has filed this revision petition No.4436 of 2010.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that the son of the respondent, K.Ramakrishna Reddy went to Dr. G.V.S. Rao for treatment of his decreasing hearing capability. The petitioner advised him for Stapedotomy operation on the right ear. Accordingly, the patient was admitted in the petitioner''s hospital on 08.01.2002 and he was operated upon by the petitioner on same day. The local anaesthesia was administered by the petitioner/surgeon/Dr. Rao himself and the operation was completed. As per the complaint, the patient was complaining of severe pain in the ear and the blood was oozing out of the ear throughout the day. It has been alleged that the information was sent to the petitioner, but he did not come to attend the patient. On 09.01.2002, the patient went to the toilet and while coming back from the toilet he became unconscious. The brother of the patient called the petitioner, who came and gave medicines to the patient. The petitioner also called anaesthetist as he found it to be a case of convulsion. Meanwhile, the condition of the patient deteriorated and the petitioner shifted the patient to another hospital SVR Super Speciality Hospital. The SVR Super Speciality Hospital finally declared the patient as brought dead.

  3. The complainants lodged an FIR with the police against the petitioner and the police got post-mortem conducted as well as expert opinion from the forensic expert of a Government Hospital namely Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Secunderabad-A.P. was also taken. Meanwhile, the complainants filed a complaint case i.e. CD No.281/2003 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad, (in short "the District Forum") for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner.

  4. The District Forum vide its order dated 29.12.2005 dismissed the complaint.

  5. Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, complainants preferred an appeal before the State Commission which vide its order dated 08.09.2010 allowed the complaint as under:

    Thus, on an overall consideration of the factual and legal aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the OP doctor is liable to compensate the loss to an extent of Rs.10 lakhs for the medical negligence which resulted in the death of the patient Ramakrishna Reddy. The District Forum failed to analyse the factual aspects in arriving at the correct conclusion about the negligence on the part of the OP doctor. The findings of the District Forum are liable to be set aside by allowing the claim.

    In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 29.12.2005 of the District Forum passed in CD 281/2003 directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest at 9% from the date of complaint till realization and cost of Rs.2000/- throughout. Compliance of the order shall be made within four weeks.

  6. Hence the revision petition by the petitioner/opposite party.

  7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

  8. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the case of the complainants is that during Stapedotomy operation of the ear, which is a Micro Ear Surgery, some artery was cut during the operation, which resulted in accumulation of blood in brain resultantly causing fainting and then death of the patient. This surgery is a standard surgery and the opposite party/petitioner is a reputed ENT Specialist and Surgeon, who has experience of operating many such cases. First of all, neither the post-mortem report nor any of the expert opinions available on file have confirmed any of the internal artery having been cut or damaged. The complaint is only based on conjectures of the complainants. In fact, according to the post-mortem report, the death was due to pulmonary oedema and cerebral oedema. None of the expert reports available on the record show anything confirming any damage done to any blood vessel inside the skull due to such operation of the ear. Therefore, the case of the complainants is prima facie without any basis and without any evidence.

  9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pleaded that the report was called by the criminal court from Dr. M.Ravinder Reddy, Prof.& Head of the Department of Forensic medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad. The State Commission and the complainants are relying on this report. In this report, it has been stated that the patient''s condition was not properly monitored post-operation in a careful manner by the treating doctor/opposite party and when the condition of the patient suddenly deteriorated on the next day morning, there was no service of any anaesthetist available in the hospital for treating the patient. It is also mentioned in this report that the treating surgeon was negligent as he did not seek the assistance of anaesthetist to administer anaesthesia. The learned counsel mentioned that the surgeon administered local anaesthesia as it is considered quite safe as compared to general anaesthesia where the services of anaesthetist are required. The opposite party/surgeon had lot of experience in giving anaesthesia to the patients before such operation. As it was only an ENT clinic, so, there was no requirement of having a regular anaesthetist. When the condition of the patient deteriorated suddenly, opposite party called an anaesthetist who became available in the hospital immediately. However, the condition of the patient had deteriorated so much that he could not treat him and the patient was shifted to other hospital. The report that local anaesthesia can lead to its effect on central nervous system is not based on any medical evidence as local anaesthesia cannot act in such a delayed manner. This is a report which has been purposely given to find fault with the surgeon/opposite...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT