(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the order dated 13.11.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby the complaint filed by the appellant -complainant alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of respondent -opposite party while giving treatment to the complainant for his fractured leg, has been dismissed.
(2.) THE case set up by the complainant before the District Forum was that he remained admitted in the hospital of opposite party from 7.1.2001 to 17.1.2001 for treatment of his fractured leg and thereafter got outdoor treatment. It was stated by the complainant that due to wrong treatment and wrong prescription of medicines by the opposite party, his leg was shortened. By filing complaint before the District Forum, the complainant sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 along with interest @ 24% per annum besides litigation expenses.
(3.) UPON notice, the opposite party appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant. It was admitted by the opposite party that the complainant was admitted in his hospital on 7.1.2001 with history of roadside accident. Necessary intimation was given to the concerned police and M.L.R. was prepared. It was stated that the patient -complainant had type -II (open) compound fracture on Lt. Tibia -fibula. The tibia fracture was segmental i.e. the fracture at upper third and middle -third of the bone and thus was dividing the bone into three fragments. There was a 4" laceration overlying the middle fragment with protruding bone. The wound had roadside contamination. Plaster was applied which was removed on 14.5.2001 and then x -ray was done. Clinically, the fracture had united but on x -ray there was delayed union and once a light plaster slab was applied to give more time to the fracture to unite well. However, the patient -complainant did not come for final removal of the plaster which was applied by the opposite party. In his written statement the opposite party has given observation in para No. 2 in the following manner: