Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc hyderabad Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.045 seconds)

Oct 25 2013 (TRI)

B. Venkateswara Reddy and Another Vs. M/S Kamineni Hospitals Rep. by I ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Oct-25-2013

..... supportive measures were continued and the treatment was modified accordingly to the need and on the 5th post operative day, inspite of intensive care treatment and other supportive measures, the patents condition deteriorated despite increasing doses of ionotropic support and at about 7.30 pm. the patient developed cardiac arrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was attempted but unfortunately the patient could not be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2013 (TRI)

Mrs C. Sita Prasad and Another Vs. M/S. Lodha Healthy Construction and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Nov-25-2013

..... in so far as the review of arbitral award is concerned and the only parameter is to be ensured is fairness. it was held that interference on the ground of patent illegality in the arbitral award is permissible only if the same goes to the root of the matter and public policy violation which should be unfair and unreasonable as to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2013 (TRI)

Metta Krishna Rao Vs. M/S the Seven Hills Hospital Rep. by Its Managin ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Aug-19-2013

..... 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2013 (TRI)

indo American Cancer Institute and Research Centre and Others Vs. Sri ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jan-18-2013

..... regard to any subsequent effect of such illness on the patient, without the consent of the patient.(4)a doctor should not disclose any information about the illness of his patent, without the consent of the patient, even when requested by a public or statutory body except in case of modifiable diseases. (5) even in the case of husband and wife ..... resulted harm to the patient, and is not in the interest of the public. the following points may be noted (1) a doctor should not discuss the illness of his patent with others without consent of the patient., (2) if the patient is a major, the doctor should not disclose any facts about the illness without his consent to parents or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2013 (TRI)

The Managing Director Charitasri Hospitals Limited, Rep. by Dr.K. Vija ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jul-29-2013

..... the disc) comes out and protrudes. in case of disc bulge there will not be rupture of annulus, but the disc bulges with some amount of outpouching. disc bulge is patently lesser serious than erniated disc. the study also reveal that mere low backache cannot be an indication for immediate surgery. persisting leg pain developing for at least 04 weeks even .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2013 (TRI)

Andhra Bank, Konakachi Penuganchiprolu Mandal Vs. Vyakaranam Sri Nagav ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Sep-26-2013

..... was signed as per ex.b7 on 30.8.2010. so by that date the deceased had taken treatment and also got amputation done to the left leg. this ailment patently not disclosed in the declaration form. the account holder declared that he was not suffering from any critical illness or condition requiring medical treatment as on that date. when there .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2013 (TRI)

Shaik Haseena Vs. Indian Red Cross Society Rep. by Its Secretary Gener ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Nov-25-2013

oral order: (r. lakshminarsimha rao, member) 1. the complaint is filed claiming compensation of rs.95,00,000/- towards loss of health, loss of family, loss of companionship and mental agony and costs. 2. the averments of the complaint are that the complainant after conceiving was taken to triveni hospital for medical checkup and on the advice of the doctors, she was admitted in the hospital for delivery. as per advice of doctors of the triveni hospital on 1.11.2011 the complainant agreed to undergo cesarean section. after conducting several tests the doctors advised her to make arrangement for two units of b positive blood for cesarean operation as the complainant was not having sufficient blood. the complainants parents purchased two units of b+ blood bearing packet no.a-75001 and a-74949 from opposite party no.3 for rs.1,000/- on 2.11.2011. on 3.11.2011 and the doctor has advised for one more unit of blood to the complainant and as such her parents purchased b+ blood from opposite party no.2 vide bag no.a-75097 for rs.700/- and the same was handed over to the doctor in the hospital. 3. the complainant has submitted that the doctors transfused the blood to the complainant after cesarean and were discharged from the hospital after one week from the hospital. after discharge the complainant started suffering with high temperature with severe body pains and itching over the body and the complainant was taken to triveni hospital and got examined by the doctors and prescribed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2013 (TRI)

N. Shashank Reddy Vs. Dr. Svss Prasad, Medical Oncologist, Apollo Hops ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jan-30-2013

oral order: (r. lakshminarasimha rao, member) 1. the complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties for payment of compensation an amount of `75,00,000/- and for reimbursement of medical expenses of `22,00,000/- and costs of the proceedings. 2. the complainants mother was suffering from headache for 15 days and on 22.09.2009 she was taken to dr.rajesh reddy who is attached to the opposite party no.3-hospital, who advised for mri scan of brain which revealed that the complainants mother was suffering from high grade glioma cancer which requires the patient to undergo surgery. the patient consulted dr.alok ranjan of the opposite party no.3-hospital and he advised for immediate surgery. the doctor clarified that the cancer had not spread to other parts of the patients body. 3. the patient consulted the second opposite party who advised for complete pet scan of the patients body on 24.09.2009 which revealed small activity near lymph nodes(near lungs). the second opposite party advised for biopsy of the part near the lymph nodes on 25.09.2009 and the second opposite party advised to continue the same medicine for a period of 3 to 4 days by which time the biopsy report would be made available . biopsy report of the lymph nodes revealed no malignancy and the second opposite party suspected it to be tb of the lymph nodes and he advised for biopsy of the lesion in the brain of the patient which was done on 1.10.2009 which revealed cns primary lymphoma. 4. the patient was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 2013 (TRI)

Dr.G. Ramesh Dnb Mrcs, Anu Hospitals and Another Vs. V. Venkata Ratnam

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Dec-31-2013

r. lakshminarasimha rao, incharge president the opposite parties are the appellants. the complaint is filed by the respondent for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of rs.1,50,000/- towards the medical expenses incurred by the complainant and to pay rs.13,50,000/- towards negligence, damages and costs. the case of the respondent is that she visited the 2nd appellant hospital on 11-11-2010 as she was running fever with chills, vomiting and headache. the first appellant examined the respondent and advised her to admit in the second appellant hospital. the appellant hospital technicians collected blood sample for cbp, widal and mp strip test and as per the reports, typhoid and malaria were found negative. the first appellant administered falcigo inj. mgnex inj. amikacin inj, quinine inj. pantacid inj. zofer inj. and calpol tablets, the temperature came down. the respondent had sudden loss of vision and there was no improvement. the respondent submitted that the first appellant conducted several blood examinations and referred her to royal diagnostics and research centre, vijayawada on 15-11-2010 and referred to dr.j.srimannarayana, a consultant cardiologist for 2d echo cardiagram and on 17-1-2011 she was referred to dr.g.v.narendra, aravinda retina vitreous institute, vijayawada where he concluded that there was signs of bilateral optic nerve pathology and the respondent spent rs.5000/- over there. the respondent submitted that the first appellant continued .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2013 (TRI)

Dr. C. Sharath Babu Vs. Dr. K. Venkat

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

Decided on : Jan-31-2013

oral order: (t. ashok kumar, member) 1. this is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful opposite party as against the orders dated 16.11.2010 in cc 153/2008 on the file of the district consumer forum, warangal. for convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under : 2. the brief facts of the complaint are that on 06.03.2008 the complainant who is a retired veterinary doctor approached the opposite party/medical practitioner for check up to his left eye. accordingly, the op examined him and advised for scanning and after such a scanning he informed the complainant that his lift is fit for cataract operation. then on 10.03.2008, the complainant paid rs.11,000/- to the op towards operation fee and such a cataract operation was done to his left eye and it was bandaged. soon after the operation, the op informed the complainant that a mistake has been committed during his operation and thereby a piece of cataract has gone towards retina and directed the complainant to approach him on the next day. on 11.03.2008 op removed the bandage that was applied to left eye of the complainant and then to his surprise he could not see anything from his left eye and it did not have any vision. it was so happened due to the only negligence and carelessness of the op in conducting such an operation. the complainant had taken treatment at lv prasad eye hospital, hyderabad and he suffered a lot due to the carelessness and negligent operation done by op. 1 and on .....

Tag this Judgment!


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