Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc hyderabad Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 14 results (0.029 seconds)

Dec 21 2012 (TRI)

Smt V. Madhavi Vs. Dr.K.Thirupal Reddy and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Dec-21-2012

..... record do not mention the name of the duty doctor who transfused blood. o) medical records are incomplete, the notings are tampered, intake and output chart clearly show that the patent was in a state of anuria (no urine output) due to renal failure consequent to blood transfusion. no specialist doctor was summoned to attend to the patient. p) dr. s .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2012 (TRI)

Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. the Apollo Hospital Jubilee Hills and Othe ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-03-2012

..... accrued to the consumer. each case is to be decided on its own facts. if the effect of negligence on the doctors part or any person associated with him is patent, the cause of action will be deemed to have arisen on the date when the act of negligence was done. if, on the other hand, the effect of negligence is ..... honble supreme court held that in case of medical negligence, the cause of action would arise on detection of the complaint if it is latent and in the case of patent problem from the time the patient suffered from the problem . it was observed that: 18. in cases of medical negligence, no straitjacket formula can be applied for determining as to ..... not be done on the complainant on 24.12.1997 as he developed chest pain. 100% rca is not a contra indication for the procedure of angioplasty. when lcx is patent, angioplasty is the preferred mode of treatment for severe double vessel coronary artery disease. 12. after by pass on 2.-1.1998 there was good blood flow and the purpose .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2012 (TRI)

Chaitanya Medical Centre Rep. by Its Director and Others Vs. D. Sriniv ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Apr-16-2012

..... earlier report dated 19.6.2008 could not confirm anything and not only because of their revised opinion but also based on the expert opinion report of srl ranbaxy, the ??patent has been advised further assessment ? . thus, the opposite parties tacitly admitted that their 1st report dated 19.6.2008 was wrong. but very peculiarly, in practice, their revised report dated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 2012 (TRI)

A. Bhumanna Vs. Dr. Vidyasagar and Another

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Dec-31-2012

oral order: (sri r.lakshminarasimha rao, honble member) 1. the complaint is filed seeking compensation against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 a sum of `50,00,000/- with interest @24% p.a. and costs. 2. the averments of the complaint are that the complainant, a government school teacher was proceeding as pillion rider on a motor cycle on 21.07.2006 which met with an accident resulting in injury and swelling to the complainants left knee for treatment of which he consulted a local doctor who treated him for two days and thereafter the complainant attended to his duties. in the month of august,2006 the complainant consulted twice dr.kauliah and once dr.hari prasad and he was relieved of the pain. on 31.12.2006 the complainant had been to shirdi and on 4.01.2007 he experienced pain in his left knee and when he consulted dr.hari prasad at nizamabad he advised the complainant to do some physiotherapy exercise and consult a knee specialist. the complainant had done the physiotherapy exercise and the pain did not subside. 3. the complainant consulted orthopedic surgeon at nims, hyderabad twice and he advised the complainant to do physiotherapy exercise which did not yield any result and the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 at the opposite party no.2-hospital. the first opposite party advised the complainant for mri and do exercise. the complainant complained that while doing exercise he developed swelling and while walking he was experiencing some obstruction in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 2012 (TRI)

Svr Neuro and Trauma Super Specialty Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jan-11-2012

oral order : (as per r.lakshminarsimha rao, member) 1. the opposite parties are the appellants. they have filed the appeal in challenge to the order of the district forum whereby they were held to have committed medical negligence and were directed to pay an amount of `2,50,000/. towards compensation which includes the medical expenses. the appellants were also directed to pay an amount of `5,000/. towards costs. 2. the facts of the case leading to filing of the appeal as seen from the complaint are that the respondent who was under treatment of dr.narendra babu for her back pain since 8.08.2003 consulted the second appellant on 13.05.2004 at the first appellant hospital. after examining the respondent and having gone through reports and prescriptions of dr.narendra babu, the second appellant informed the respondent that surgery is immediately required to be performed upon the respondent else her limbs would be paralysed. on the same day at 11 a.m. the respondent was admitted to the first appellant hospital and after due payments were made, certain tests were conducted on 17.05.2004 and the respondents spine was operated upon. the anesthetist and the second appellant informed the respondents husband that she would recover soon. the respondent was discharged on 26.05.2004. the second appellant prescribed medicines and advised for spinal exercise. the pain has not subsided. the respondent began to suffer from fever. the respondents husband consulted the second appellant on 1.06 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2012 (TRI)

Dr. Annapareddy Lakshmi Vs. J. Suneetha and Another

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jan-03-2012

oral order : (as per r.lakshminarsimha rao, member) 1. the first opposite party in the complaint has filed the appeal. the first respondent has filed complaint seeking damages of `2,70,000/- and compensation to the extent of `2,30,000/-against the appellant and the second respondent alleging medical negligence. 2. the facts of the case as per the version of the first respondent are that after undergoing periodical check up by the appellant, she was admitted on 2-08-2007 to the appellants nursing home for delivery. a female child was born at 3.45 p.m. on the same day. the appellant informed the first respondent that conducting cesarean section upon her is necessary as she had delivered her first child through cesarean section. the appellant assured the first respondent that every thing will be fine. the second respondent confirmed the blood group of the first respondent as ??o-ve after undergoing the operation, the first respondent developed abdominal pain and abdominal distension for three weeks and she was discharged from the appellants hospital on 5-08-2007 at midnight in serious condition. she was admitted to apollo hospital, hyderabad and was discharged on 20-02-2007. the discharge summary evidences that the first respondent was diagnosed with paralytic ileus and subacute obstruction with septicemia. the appellant did not exercise reasonable care and there was contributory negligence on her part. there was plenty of fluid in the abdomen and also blood stained fluid with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 2012 (TRI)

The Regional Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Mar-19-2012

oral order (per smt.m.shreesha, honble member ) aggrieved by the order in c.c.no.41/2005 on the file of district forum, medak at sangareddy, the complainant preferred f.a.no.275/2011, opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred f.a.no.525/2010, opposite party no.3 preferred f.a.no.277/2011 and opposite party no.5 preferred f.a.no.503/2010. since all these appeals arise out of common c.d., they are being disposed of by a common order. the brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants son, one mukunda reddy, aged 23 years suffered from severe stomach pain and was taken to gajanan hospital on 18-2-2004 and opposite parties 1 and 2 examined the patient and advised x-ray and blood test reports. after examining the x-ray and blood test reports, opposite parties 1 and 2 called opposite party no.3 who is consulting doctor and opposite party no.3 conducted the surgery on the patient without examining x-ray report. the complainant submits that the surgery was performed for appendicitis but the patients intestine became septic and he was admitted in the hospital for a period of 10 days. opposite party no.3 performed another operation at vasavi hospital on 03-3-2004 and he was treated in the said hospital till 18-3-2004. thereafter the patient developed multi palfaceal-fistula in the abdomen and was passing stools from multiple holes in the stomach. on 18-3-2004, opposite party no.3 referred the patient to vivekananda hospital and while undergoing treatment, the patient died .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2012 (TRI)

M/S Visakha Hospital and Diagnostics Ltd. (Care Hospital), Rep. by Its ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-03-2012

oral order: (sri r.lakshminarasimha rao, honble member) 1. the first opposite party is the appellant. the complainant filed the complaint claiming reimbursement of medical expenses of `1,84,857/- with interest and `50,000/- towards damages and costs. 2. the complainant was admitted to the first opposite party-hospital on 13.09.2009 with the complaint of chest pain and for the treatment of cad- mild lv dysfunction and he was discharged on 23.09.2009 and the complainant paid the bill for an amount of `1,84,857/-. the complainant contended that the opposite parties no.2 and 3 issued arogyasri card to him and the first opposite party-hospital at the time of his admission informed him that he need not pay any amount and at the time of discharge the first opposite party collected the amount from him and the opposite parties are liable to repay the amount to him. 3. the claim is resisted on behalf of the first opposite party on the premise that the complainants son informed the first opposite party that his father is not covered under arogyasri and he issued letter undertaking to pay the expenses of his father and after three days he approached arogyamitra with a request to see that his fathers case is covered by arogyasri and as the card produced by him did not match, he paid the treatment charges of his father at the time of discharge of the complainant. the second opposite party has also stated that the card furnished by the complainant was mismatched and the complainant is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 2012 (TRI)

Smt Parvathi Sirisha N Vs. Yashoda Hospital, Rep. by Its Director and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Dec-11-2012

oral order: (sri r.lakshminarasimha rao, honble member) 1. the complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of `40 lakh with interest towards medical expenses and treatment, `5 lakh with interest towards compensation for mental agony and `25,000/- towards costs 2. the averments of the complaint are that on 11.3.2008 she was admitted in the opposite party no.1 hospital for treatment of gum bleeding and she was treated for a period for 22 days and blood was transfused to her where after her condition was further deteriorated. after her condition become normal, she was discharged on 2.4.2008 and the complainant incurred an amount of `1,90,000/- towards medial expenditure. on 18.7.2008 she was again admitted as inpatient in the opposite party no.1 hospital and during the time of her admission for the first time she was treated by the opposite parties no.4 to 6 and when she was admitted for the second time the opposite parties no.4 and 6 administered treatment to her and discharged her on 19.7.2008 and the complainant incurred an amount of `10,000/- towards consultation fees and medicine. 3. on 2.8.2008 the complainant was admitted for delivery in the opposite party no.1 hospital and she had undergone lscs and she gave birth to a female child. the opposite parties conducted various tests and diagnosed the complainant suffering from hepatitis-b. hepatatits b was caused due to blood transfusion done to the complainant during the course of treatment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2012 (TRI)

The Narayana General Hospital, Rep. by Its Superintendent/Medical Offi ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jul-18-2012

smt. m. shreesha, honble member aggrieved by the order in c.c.no.80/2007 on the file of district forum, nellore, the opposite party preferred this appeal. the brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, a vegetable vendor, went to opposite party hospital on 25-4-2006 for taking treatment for her obesity. b.p. and other tests were done but no medicines were prescribed. on the next date, the doctor prescribed some medicines and after consuming the same, she developed allergy on an injection given to her. the complainant submitted that as her condition became worse, she approached dr. lakshmi, pogathota nellore and later peoples poli clinic, nellore and as her condition became worse, she went to government general hospital, chennai wherein the doctors removed her left hand upto shoulder to save her life. the complainant submitted that she took treatment as inpatient at chennai for three months and to avoid danger to her life, her left hand was amputated and all this was because of the negligent act of the opposite party and its staff. the complainant submitted that because of amputation of her hand, it is not able to do any work. hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment together with costs. opposite party filed counter resisting the complaint and submitted that the opposite party is a general hospital attached to the medical .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //