SUDHIR GUPTA Vs. SACHIN BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, allowing consumer complaint No. 16 of 2006 and directing the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 45,000 to the complainant.

(2.) THE facts of the case, inbrief, are that the complainant -Sh. Sachin Bhatia approached the opposite party -Dr. Sudhir Gupta for removing the steel rod/nail which was inserted in his leg for the treatment of a fracture. The opposite party performed the operation on 29.5.2005 after ascertaining that the blood pressure, etc. of the complainant was normal. The complainant has alleged that the blood was continuously oozing out from his leg during the operation and this condition remained till 1.6.2005, when he was discharged from the hospital of the opposite party. At that time, he was handed over a small piece of the steel rod along with two screws. The complainant has also alleged that though the opposite party had charged Rs. 10,000 for the said operation, but no receipt was given. Apart from this fees, the complainant had also paid Rs.350 to Dr. Rakesh Mittal, who checked the blood pressure of the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that he was suffering from severe pain and, therefore, he got his leg checked up by Dr.B.K.S. Sanjay, who found that a piece of steel rod was still in the leg and advised him to get it operated immediately else it may cause infection. On his advice, the complainant was admitted in Combined Medical Institute, Dehradun on 1.6.2005, where he was operated upon for removing the nail (steel rod) on 2.6.2005. Thus, the complainant had to again pay the operation fee and incur other medical expenses and, thus, suffered a lot of mental and physical agony. On filing a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, the District Forum, on an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the same, thereby directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000 to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. At the very outset, we would like to say that this appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.