SAVITA Y CHOUDHARI Vs. GHANASHYAM G KOCHURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this complaint, Ms. Savita Choudhari alleged deficiency in the service of opposite party viz. Dr. Ghanashyam Kochure. The facts of the complaint are that while riding a bicycle, the complainant had a fall on the ground as a result of which, she had sustained fracture. She was taken to Dr. Kochure for treatment. The incident took place on 27th August, 1988 and immediately she was given treatment by Dr. Kochure. The complainant alleged that the treatment given by Shri (Dr.) Kochure was deficient in as much as while applying plaster to her hand, Dr. Kochure committed negligence, as a result of which she developed gas gangrene and was taken to Bombay on 30th August, 1988 and on the next day, on 31st August, 1988, her hand was amputated to save her life. The complainant therefore, filed this complaint alleging deficiencies in the service of the opposite party and claimed Rs. 3,72,000/- towards total compensation including the loss of hand and expenses of treatment and legal expenses.

(2.) The opposite party filed its detailed written version dated 7th September, 1993. Inter alia, it is stated by the opposite party, Dr. Kochure that complainant has filed a Criminal Case bearing No. 2075 of 1990 against him for an offence punishable under section 388 of the I.P.C. and that complaint is pending. Similarly, the complainant has also filed a Special Civil Suit No. 237 of 1990 in August, 1990, claiming a compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh from Dr. Kochure on the ground of negligence, committed by him while treating her. That too is also pending before the Civil Court. Lastly, the complainant has also apprached the Medical Council of Maharashtra, alleging negligence in her treatment by Dr. Kochure and that is also pending enquiry. After approaching the aforesaid 3 Forums, mentioned above, the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission on 11th November, 1992. The opposite party therefore, alleged that the claim of the complainant is barred by limitation.

(3.) We have heard Shri Atre, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.S. Pandit, Advocate for opposite party.