Patient’s Favour / Surgeon

What
is Law     Right
of Doctors     Responsibilities    
Negligence    
Consents     Records    
Cases

       

Legislations    
Medical
Ethics      FAQ’s

Surgeon

           

• 
  KIDNEY
  STONE CENTRE v. KHEM SINGH @ KHEM CHAND
  
  II (2001) CPJ 436
  
      
  
  
  UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER
  
  DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  
  CHANDIGARH
  
    
  
  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14(1)(c)
  – Refund – Medical Service – Advertisement,
  stones removed without surgery – Kidney Stone
  Centre failed by remove the stone from
  complainant prostatic urethra – District Forum
  order for refund of fee charged along with
  interest – Hence appeal – Order of Forum upheld
  appeal.
  
    
  
  Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member – The complainant
  Shri Khem Singh @ Khem Chand resident of Ropar
  was suffering from a stone the initial part of
  the prostatic urethra and was advised to undergo
  surgery by the doctors of General Hospital,
  Sector16, Chandigarh. The complainant was not in
  favour of surgery and hence approached the
  Kidney Stone Centre, Chandigarh based on
  12.2.1996 on the advertisement in the newspaper
  that the stone are removed without surgery.
  However, the Kidney Stone Centre failed to
  remove the stone from his prostatic urethra
  which resulted filing of a complaint against the
  centre in District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on
  10.7.1998. The District Forum , U.T., Chandigarh
  in its judgment dated 11.2.2000 ordered that the
  opposite part should refund a fee of Rs.
  10,000/- charged by interest @ 12% w.e.f.
  14.2.1996 till payment and costs Rs. 2,500/- for
  unfair trade practices.
  
    
  
  
  2. Aggrieved against the order passed by the
  District Forum, the present appeal has been
  preferred. Briefly the respondent-complainant
  was diagnosed to have stone in the initial part
  of prostatic urethra by General Hospital,
  Sector 16, Chandigarh, where he was advised to
  undergo surgery. The complainant/appelant was
  not in favour of undergoing surgery, therefore,
  on the opinion given by Dr. A.K. Gupta, a
  private medical practitioner, of Village Maloya,
  and also baseed on the advertisement in the
  newspaper that stones are removed without
  surgery, he went to the clinic of Kidney Stone
  Centre, Chandigarh on 12.2.1996. He paid fee of
  Rs. 100/- and was assured that the stone will be
  removed. by modern technique, i.e. E.S.W.L. -
  Electric Shock Wave Lithotripsy. It was stated
  to be a painless process without anaesthesia and
  sedations. It was also explained to him that the
  whole process will take 1/2 to 1 hour. He was
  explained that the cost of the E.S.W.L. will be
  Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant believed the said
  assurance and paid Rs. 10,000/- on 14.2.1996 for
  E.S.W.L. process for about 5 hours on that day
  by Dr. Rajinder Kumar and Dr. D.P. Singh in the
  premises of the respondent. But all was in vain.
  He visited the clinic again on 15.2.1996 and
  remained there till 5.0 p.m. but the stone
  remained where it was, i.e. prostatic urethra.
  The doctors used metallic catheters to push the
  stone to urinary bladder. It was a painful
  process that caused bleeding per-penis during
  the night. The complainant was shifted to a
  private clinic by the family members. He was
  told there that he was not physically fit to
  undergo more shock waves for removal of stone.
  The respondent-complainant informed the
  appellant that they have failed to remove the
  stone through painless process, hence his money
  be refunded to him. But the appellant refused to
  do so. On a subsequent day, i.e. on 26.2.1996,
  X-Ray film showed that the stone was still
  present in the initial part of the prostatic
  urethra measuring 15 mm. in size. The
  respondent-complainant averred that he has been
  unduly put through mental tension, harassment
  and suffered acute pain due to insertion of
  metallic catheter in the urethra to push through
  the stone in the bladder.
  
    
  
  The appellant has admitted introductory facts
  but informed that the stone had to be pushed
  back into the bladder for which he has to be
  administered local anaesthesia/sedations and
  that would be followed by E.S.W.L. In case of a
  failure of this treatment, the facilities of
  open surgery were available in the clinic.
  Efforts were made to push the stone from the
  prostatic urethra to the bladder by following
  E.S.W.L. 1000 shocks. The appellant was scared
  to undergo further shocks and was not prepared
  for open surgery. It is relevant to mention that
  at appellant Centre the diagnosis was as under ” Bladder Stone
  “
  
    
  
  
  3. The advertisement (Annexure P-8) also
  undertakes that the surgery is carried out
  through E.S.W.L. Lithotripsy which is a painless
  surgery for removing stones. The learned Counsel
  for the appellant during the course of arguments
  stated that the order of the Forum be dismissed,
  because this clinic only removes stones from
  kidney and not from any other part of the body
  like prostatic urethra in this case.
  
    
  
  
  4. It is pertinent to refer to the affidavit of
  Dr. D.P. Singh who had been working at
  appellant’s clinic during the period of
  occurrence under reference. He has deposed in
  para 2 line 5 of his affidavit as under :
  
  ” It was not possible to focus this stone
  for ESWL as assessed by Dr. Rajendra Kumar and
  the team. So in order to relieve his pain
  retention urine, the stone was pushed back into
  bladder with urethral dilators under local
  anaesthesia and sedation a standard procedure.
  “
  
      
  
  The factum of wrong assessment by hte appellant
  hospital is corroborated by the abovementioned
  statement of Dr. D.P.Singh, who is none else but
  the treating doctor of the appellant.
  
     
  
  
  5. On thorough perusal of the entire record and
  evidence adduced by both the parties and hearing
  the learned Counsel of both the sides, we are of
  the considered view that this appeal lacks merit
  and the same is dismissed.
  
     
  
  Appeal dismissed.
  
      

• M/s.
  CDR Hospitals & Ors. v. Smt.
  Nirmala Manaseh & Ors.
  
  2001 (2) CPR 69 (NC)
  
     
  
  NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
  COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
  
   
  
  D.P. Wadhwa, President; C.L. Chaudhry,
  J.K. Mehra, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao and
  B.K. Taimni, Members
  
   
  
  M/s. CDR Hospitals & Ors. -
  Appellants versus Smt. Nirmala Manaseh
  & Ors. – Respondents
  
   
  
  First Appeal No. 64 of 2001
  
  Decided on 11-4-2001
  
   
  
  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -
  Sections 2 and 14 – Medical negligence
  – Complainant suffered minor injury on
  cheek bone in accident and was treated
  in appellant hospital – Blisters
  appeared on face where there was no
  accident wound – Negligence alleged as
  the nurse while cleaning the wounds
  with saline ampule broke ampule
  carelessly and broken glass pieces of
  ampule got embedded – Defence plea
  that blisters were due to alergy -
  State Comission found appellant guilty
  of negligence and awarded compensation
  of Rs. 30,000/- with costs – Appeal -
  Three foreign bodies were removed from
  face – Doctor examined stated that
  complainant was not allergic to savlon
  – It was for appellant to bring
  evidence to rebut or explain as to how
  blisters appeared on face immediately
  after agonising pain suffered by
  complainant – No infirmity or
  illegality in order passed by State
  Comission.   (Paras 3 to 5)
  
   
  
  Result : Appeal dismissed.
  
   
  
  ORDER
  
   
  
  Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member – This
  First Appeal has been filed by the
  Respondent / Appellant M/s. CDR
  Hospitals & Ors. against the order
  of the State Commission, Andhra
  Pradesh through which the complainant
  / Respondent Smt. Nirmala Manaseh has
  been awarded a compensation of Rs.
  30,000/- with interest of 12% p.a.
  from the date of the complaint and
  costs of Rs. 2,000/- finding
  negligence on the part of the
  Respondent / Appellants 1 and 2.
  
   
  
  2. Briefly the facts are that the
  complainant / Respondent Smt. Nirmala
  Manaseh fell from scooter on
  26-10-1989 and suffered minor injuries
  on the right eyelids and cheek bone
  and on the upper lip. She was rushed
  to the nearest Hospital where she was
  given first aid and was advised to go
  to a physician. On the same day at
  about 6.30 pm, she went to the
  Appellant’s Hospital. The allegation
  is that the nurse, Ms. Shobha Rani
  while cleaning the wounds with saline
  ampule broke the ampule carelessly and
  the broken glass pieces of the ampule
  got embedded in the complainant’s face
  and neck. The second allegation was
  that on 28-10-1989 while cleaning the
  complainant’s wound on the face, the
  Resident Medical Doctor (Appellant No.
  2) applied first a yellow solution and
  then a white solution. The latter’s
  application resulted in severe burning
  which according to the complainant /
  Respondent was ‘spirit’ instead of
  saline which should have been used for
  cleaning of wounds. Next morning,
  blisters appeared on the face where
  there was no accident wounds. The
  Appellants rebutted that allegations
  and stated that there was no case of
  breaking of ampule by the nurse and
  appearance of blisters were attributed
  to alergy. After detailed examination
  of material on record and affidavits
  filed by both the parties, the State
  Commission came to the conclusion that
  there was clear case of medical
  negligence which resulted in blisters
  on the face of the Complainant /
  Respondent Mrs. Nirmala, basing its
  decision on the opinion given by Dr.
  I. Chandra Shekhar, that Ms. Nirmala
  was not allergic to savlon meaning
  thereby, that the blisters on the face
  of Ms. Nirmala could not have been on
  account of any allergic reaction as is
  made out by the Respondent /
  Appellant. As a result of which the
  State Commission awarded Rs. 30,000/-
  as compensation and costs of Rs.
  2,000/- based on loss of income on the
  part of Ms. Nirmala for about six
  months, when she had to go to other
  Hospital and get plastic surgery done
  bringing her back to near normal. The
  main ground of appeal advanced by the
  learned counsel for the appellant is
  that there was no negligence on the
  part of his clients and the opinion of
  Dr. I. Chandra Shekhar relied upon by
  the State Commission to base its order
  is not maintainable as the same Doctor
  conducted the test on left arm and not
  on the face.
  
    
  
  3. A perusal of the material record
  clearly reveals that after first -aid,
  Ms. Nirmala was admitted in the
  Appellant’s Hospital where she
  remained under treatment for a few
  days. It is on record that three
  foreign bodies were removed from her
  upper lip and face, two on 16-12-1989
  and third on 4-4-1990. It is also a
  matter of record that Dr. Chandra
  Shekhar gave a clear opinion that the
  complainant / Respondent Ms. Nirmala
  is not allergic to savlon. In the
  light of the latter, the stand of the
  appelant the blisters on the face were
  caused by allergy, is not found to be
  maintainable. While it may not be
  possible for anyone to say
  categorically that it was ‘spirit’ and
  not savlon which was applied by
  Appellant No.2, but it is quite clear
  and admitted that the complainant /
  Respondent Ms. Nirmala did develop
  blisters on the face in the scooter
  after (Sic).
  
   
  
  4. It was for the Appellants to bring
  any evidence or rebut the opinion of
  Dr. Chandra Shekhar or to explain as
  to how the blisters appeared on the
  face immediately after agonising pain
  suffered by Ms. Nirmala on application
  of a certain liquid by Appellant No.
  2. Failure to do so have only
  strengthened the case of Ms. Nirmala
  and we find ourselves in agreement
  with the reasoning based on which
  State Commission passed its order
  finding the Appellants negligent as
  well as deficient in service towards
  the complainant / Respondent, Ms.
  Nirmala.
  
   
  
  5. We find no infirmity or illegality
  in the order passed by the State
  Commission.
  
   
  
  6. The learned Counsel at this stage
  also pleaded for extension of period
  to make the payment of compensation.
  The amount is so small and the period
  of agony and travails so long, that we
  do not see any merit in this prayer.
  
    
  
  The Appeal is dismissed. Keeping in
  view the facts and circumstances of
  the case, no order as to costs.
  
   
  
  Appeal dismissed.
  
      

• CH. PADMA v. SUDHA NURSING HOME
  
  I (2002) CPJ 53
  
       
  
  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g)
  – Medical Negligence – Deficiency in Service
  – Poor post operative treatment – Opposite party not able to identify the disease early till the complications arose
  – Patient brought back to Nursing Home on 2.8.1991, not operated till 5.8.1991
  – Postoperative treatment done by doctors not qualified in Allopathy
  – Complainant developed fecal fistula and bedsore because of injection and deficiency in post operative care
  – Negligence on part of opposite party established
  – Complainant entitled to compensation.
  
         
  
  Held: In view of the above discussion we hold that there is deficiency in service of the part of the opposite party in not able to identify the disease early till the complications set in. Therefore, discharging the patient at the first instance and even though patient was brought back to the Nursing Home on 2.8.1991 complaining of severe pain, not able to take a decision about the surgery till 5.8.1991 also amounts to deficiency in service in the light of the conduct as seen above.
  
     
  
  The operation was conducted by opening the abdomen by the standard right para median incision and it was found that there was fulminant peritinitis due to perforation of the small intestine because of typhoid ulcers. The gut was very fragile. The adhesions were relieved. The perforated gut was reselected and end to end anaestamosis was carried out. Appendix was also removed. Peritonial toilet was done after leavage corrugated rubber was kept and abdomen was closed layer by layer. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that the patient was kept on post operated treatment during which she had a stormy post operative period and for her every day was a struggle between life and death. There is no complaint by the complainant about conducting the operation. But the post operative treatment was done mostly by the doctors who were not qualified in
  allopathy. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the post operative care was taken by Dr. Bhoom Reddy, Dr. V. Suryanarayana Reddy and Dr. S. Rama Reddy, the visiting physician. The dressings were done by Dr. Bhoom Reddy and his son only. Only routine functions like pulse reading, recording of blood pressure and recording of temperature were performed by other doctors under their supervision.
  
     
  
  P.W. 1states in her evidence that the duty doctors were homoepathy doctors and the post operative treatment was not done by qualified allopathy doctors, that she developed fecal fistula and bedsore because of infection and deficiency in post operative care in the opposite party Nursing Home. (Para 7 & 8)
  
     
  
  Held further: The complainant has claimed a sum of
  Rs. 30,000/- towards expenses incurred in the opposite party Nursing Home,
  Rs. 39,566/- – as expenses at Apollo Hospital,
  Hyderabad, Rs. 15,000/- as expenditure incurred by her family and
  Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of damages for the hardship caused to her. Though we do not find any exaggeration in any of the first three heads, as already seen we do not find that there is any negligence under these heads. As we held that there is negligence in providing post operative care, we feel that the complainant is entitled to a sum of
  Rs. 50,000/- towards hardship and suffering caused to her. (Para 10)
  
     
  
  Result: Complaint allowed.
  
      
  
  ORDER
  
     
  
  Mr. Justice P. Ramakrishna Raju, President
  – The complainant fell sick and she was admitted in the opposite party Nursing Home on 2.8.1991. She was operated upon on 5.8.1991 by Dr. V. Bhoom Reddy, proprietor of the Nursing Home, who released adhesions, closed Ilea perforation, anastamosis and appendicitis was also done. She was an in patient till 6.9.1991. During the post operative period, treatment was done mostly by the doctors, who were not qualified in Allopathy medicine and hence she developed severe complications including fecal fistula and bedsore. She became very weak and she developed fecal fistula due to infection. Although she was charged more than
  Rs. 30,000/- for the operation and her family incurred heavy expenditure, she developed severe complications due to poor post operative treatment.
  
      
  
  Thereupon she was referred to Dr. S.S. Reddy of the Apollo Hospital, Hyderabadon 21.10.1991 and she was accordingly admitted and was operated upon for resection of terminal, 11/2 feet of ileum along with caecum was done and end to end anastomosis of ileum to ascending colon was done. This operation had to be done in view of the complications that developed for the complainant due to poor post operative treatment by the opposite party. She incurred an expenditure of
  Rs. 39,566/- at the Apollo Hospital as she was discharged on 27.11.1991 after staying for more than a month and the family of complainant also incurred a sum of
  Rs. 15,000/- for their stay at Hyderabad due to the said complications and operation. The education of the complainant was severely effected; all this happened due to negligence of the doctors of the opposite party hospital. Hence, she approached this Commission claiming a compensation of
  Rs. 1,84,566/- under different heads.
  
      
  
  2. In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party is admitted that the complainant was admitted in the opposite party Nursing Home on 28.7.1991 for the complications like fever with chills and rigors for 15 days, vomiting and pain in abdomen. She was toxic and in agony. She was kept on conservative treatment. Although she had partial relief, her parents got discharged her on 31.7.1991 against the medical advice. She did not recover fully and still she was having persistent complaints. She was again brought back on 2.8.1991 in a precarious condition with complaints of fever,
  vomitings, pain in abdomen, distension of abdomen and her condition was moribund. Her parents were asked to take her to Hyderabad as her survival chances are only 10 to 15% but the parents of the complainant told Dr. Bhoom Reddy that they were prepared for the worst and for any outcome. Hence, investigations were carried out and it was found that the patient was suffering from acute abdomen due to enteric perforation with
  peritinitis. An emergency surgery was contemplated and that the parents were informed about the decision but the parents were not willing for the said course and, therefore, surgery had to be postponed. But her parents came to a decision in the morning of 5.8.1991 and accordingly gave their consent for surgery. Dr. Bhoom Reddy conducted the surgery after opening the abdomen. It was found that there was fulminant peritinitis due to perforation of the small intestine because of the typhoid ulcers. The gut was very fragile. Adhesions were relieved and the perforated gut was resected and end to end anaestamosis was carried out.
  
    
  
  The appendix was also removed. Peritonial toilet was done after leavage corrugated rubber was kept and abdomen was closed layer by layer. She had a stormy post operative period. For her, every day was a struggle between life and the death. Post operative care was carried out. Dressings were done either by Dr. Bhoom Reddy or his son Dr. V. Surayanarayana Reddy and Dr. S. Rama Reddy, the visiting physician. Only for routine functions like pulse reading, recording of blood pressure and recording of temperature were performed by other doctors under their personal supervision. There was no negligence on their part. The hospital charged only
  Rs. 6,000/- towards operation and hospital charges. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
  
      
  
  3. The complainant was examined as P. W. 1 and her father as P. W. 2 besides marking
  Exs. A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the opposite party, four witnesses were examined including himself as R. W. 1 and
  Exs. B-1 and B-2 were marked.
  
      
  
  4. The point for consideration is whether there is negligence on the part of the opposite party in extending post operative care during the stay of the complainant in their Nursing Home and whether she developed fecal fistula and bedsore due to improper post operative care taken by the opposite party and if so to what extent?
  
      
  
  5. As seen from the complaint the complainant was admitted on 2.8.1991 and she was operated upon on 5.8.1991 by Dr. Bhoom Reddy of the opposite party Nursing Home. However, Dr. Bhoom Reddy in his counter affidavit stated that in fact she was brought to the Nursing Home on 29.7.1991 itself with complications of fever with chills and rigors for 15 days, vomiting and pain in abdomen. Though she got partial relief her parents got her discharged on 31.7.1991 against medical advice although she was having persistent complaints. It is also stated that her parents were asked to keep her as an in patient and carry on the treatment. It may be mentioned here that the girl was aged about 16 years at that time. That she was again brought back to the Nursing Home on 2.8.1991 in a much precarious condition like fever, vomiting, pain in abdomen which were already there and in addition to distention of abdomen. After examination, the seriousness of the condition of the patient was explained to the parents and they were advised to take the patient to Hyderabad as the survival chances of the complainant were found to be 10 to 15%.
  
       
  
  But they told him that they were prepared for the worst and for any outcome. Here, it may be observed that it is hard to believe that the parents, who have finally taken the girl to the Apollo Hospital at
  Hyderabad, would have taken the advice of the doctor on a deaf ear and told him that they were prepared for the worst; particularly when a girl of 15 years was suffering from acute pain in the abdomen for quite some days. According to Dr. Bhoom Reddy who is examined as R. W. 1 the patient was discharged on 31.7.1991 and hardly within a gap of two days or less, her condition has become precarious. Even here the case of the opposite party is that the patient was relieved from the Nursing Home against the medical advice. A girl, who is suffering from such acute pain without relief, was taken away not to any other Nursing Home but only to home; where there is nothing to offer to relieve the pain, is a matter which is hard to digest. As seen from the record the attitude of the parents is not that they were reluctant to continue the treatment. Dr. Bhoom Reddy states in his counter affidavit that on investigation the patient was found to be suffering from acute abdomen pain due to enteric perforation with peritinitis and an emergency surgery was contemplated and the advice was passed on to the parents. Here again according to him the parents were reluctant and, therefore, the surgery was postponed. Ultimately the parents turn round and came to a decision on the morning of 5th August, 1991 with consent for surgery and it is stated that they were prepared for any eventuality. In this story as narrated by Dr. Bhoom Reddy, there is something more than the eye meets.
  
      
  
  6. P. W. 1 is the complainant. Her evidence is impressive. She has stated as simply and as fairly as possible. She denied that there was any suggestion coming from Dr. Bhoom Reddy that it is a case of immediate surgery and that her father withheld the consent. In fact the suggestion is that Dr. Bhoom Reddy advised her father that operation was necessary, but her father took her away. This was not even case of the opposite party in the counter affidavit. The case as set up in the counter affidavit is that when her parents were asked to keep her as inpatient and carry on the treatment the parents got her discharged against medical advice. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the version set up by the opposite party in this regard cannot be accepted, and we are of the opinion that as she stated P. W. 1 she was discharged after remaining for three days as an in patient and after prescribing some medicines to her. But as the pain became unbearable she was again taken to the Nursing Home and admitted.
  
       
  
  7. In view of the above discussion we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not able to identify the disease early till the complications set in. Therefore, discharging the patient at the first instance and even though the patient was brought back to the Nursing Home on 2.8.1991 complaining of severe pain, not able to take a decision about the surgery till 5.8.1991 also amounts to deficiency in service in the light of the conduct as seen above.
  
      
  
  8. The operation was conducted by opening the abdomen by the standard right para median incision and it was found that there was fulminant peritinitis due to perforation of the small intestine because of the typhoid ulcers. The gut was very fragile. The adhesions were relieved. The perforated gut was resected and end to end anaestamosis was carried out. Appendix was also removed. Peritoneal toilet was done after leavage corrugated rubber was kept and abdomen was closed layer by layer. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that the patient was kept on post operated treatment during which she had a stormy post operative period and for her every day was a struggle between life and death. There is no complaint by the complainant about conducting the operation. But the post operative care was taken by Dr. Bhoom Reddy and Dr. S. Rama Reddy, the visiting physician. The dressings were done by Dr. Bhoom Reddy and his son only. Only routine functions like pulse reading, recording of blood pressure and recording of temperature were performed by other doctors under their supervision P. W. 1 states in her evidence that the duty doctors were homoepathy doctors and the post operative treatment was not done by qualified allopathy doctors, that she developed fecal fistula and bedsore because of infection and deficiency in post operative care in the opposite party Nursing Home. P. W. 2 also supports the said version. He stated that after the operation other doctors who were homoeopathy trained doctors used to attend on her (patient). R. W. 1 Dr. Bhoom Reddy himself admits in the counter affidavit that only routine functions like pulse reading, recording of blood pressure and recording of temperature were performed by other doctors under his personal supervision. He admits in his evidence as R. W. 1 that the homoeopathy doctors helped him in the opposite party Nursing Home and they also checked the general condition of the patients in the ward. As the presence of the homoeopathy doctors is admitted, the statement of P. W. 1 gets support from the evidence of R. W. 1 himself.
  
     
  
  Though R. W. 1 restricts his work to opposite party department and for checking general conditions of the patients in the ward, we are of the opinion that he has engaged them to look after the post operative care of P. W. 1. This also in our view amounts to deficiency service. As such we are constrained to hold that P. W. 1 developed fecal fistula and bedsore which were also not taken care of by qualified doctors of the Nursing Home and as such these defects amount to deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
  
      
  
  9. In view of the evidence of R. Ws. 2 to 4 we have to hold that there was necessity for an emergency operation for clearing of the paretorium and closing of the ruptured intestine. We cannot, therefore, hold any negligence in conducting the emergency operation or in having the second operation namely, resection of terminal ileum and caecum i.e. removal of damaged part of the small intestine and joining them together.
  
     
  
  10. The next question is what are the damages to be awarded to the complainant ?
  
      
  
  11. The complainant has claimed a sum of
  Rs. 30,000/- towards expenses incurred in the opposite party Nursing Home,
  Rs. 39,566/- as expenses at Apollo Hospital,
  Hyderabad, Rs. 15,000/- as expenditure incurred by her family and
  Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of damages for the hardship caused to her. Though we do not find any exaggeration in any of the first three heads, as already seen we do not find that there is any negligence under these heads. As we held that there is negligence in providing post operative care, we feel that the complainant is entitled to a sum of
  Rs. 50,000/- towards hardship and suffering caused to her.
  
     
  
  Accordingly we allow the complaint in part and direct the opposite party to pay the sum of
  Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment together with a further sum of
  Rs. 5,000/- towards costs. Time for payment six weeks.
  
      
  
  Complaint allowed.
  
       

 Back