M.K. KHAMBATTA Vs. VENKATRAMA NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dtd. 6/12/2012 passed in Original Petition No. 396 of 2000 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (For short 'NCDRC'). The appellant herein was before the Commission seeking compensation from the respondents by alleging that there is medical negligence in administering treatment to the appellant.

(2.) The brief facts on which such claim was made is that the appellant was an employee of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Jamshedpur, while travelling by train through Vishakhapatnam on 24/1/1998 had stepped out of the train to the platform and while walking towards the shop to purchase certain things his left leg suddenly snapped from the tibia. He could not stand, therefore fell down. He was thereafter taken to the Railway Hospital, who advised him to consult any other private Nursing Home due to which he was thereafter admitted to the respondent No.1-Nursing Home. The appellant contends that he was assured the best possible treatment by Respondent No.2 and he was thereafter attended to by Respondent No.3. At this stage, it is necessary to observe that Respondent No.3- Dr. C. Dharma Rao who had examined the appellant and had suggested a corrective surgery for proper reunion of the bone has expired and his legal representatives have been brought on record.

(3.) In the above said circumstance, the respondents had operated upon the appellant on 25/1/1998 and had inserted the implant. The appellant was discharged on 9/2/1998. Thereafter the medical condition of the appellant was being monitored by the Tata Memorial Hospital and as per the case of the appellant himself they had declared him medically fit and he had resumed duty on 21/4/1998. However, subsequently the implant had snapped during July, 1999 due to which he was thereafter treated at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. It is in that circumstance, since the appellant had suffered the subsequent fracture during July, 1999 the appellant contends that the operation conducted by the respondents herein and the implant which was put on the appellant was not done as per the medical procedure due to which it snapped and therefore the appellant contends that there is negligence on the part of the respondents.