AMASHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. A A SAIFEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18.7.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called as "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No. 77/2005, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, alleging deficiency in service against the respondent Doctors, has been dismissed with the finding that allegations of medical negligence, have not been established in absence of expert opinion.

(2.) IN nutshell, the facts of the case are that in the month of October, 2003, the appellant herein, suffered a road accident, resulting in fracture in his leg. He was admitted in Medical College Hospital for treatment. While he was taking treatment there, respondent No. l/Dr. A.A. Saifee, contacted him and assured that he will operate the right leg of the complainant and will cure the defects. On this assurance, he got himself discharged from that hospital and then, on advice of respondent No. l, was admitted in Nursing Home of respondent No. 2. He was assured there that the right leg of the complainant, would be examined by the Computer and X -ray and would be treated by performing appropriate operation and for that purpose, Rs. 30,000 were demanded, which he paid. Then his right leg was operated in the Nursing Home of respondent No. 2 by respondent No. l. After operation, a special shoe was given to him by respondents with an instruction that the appellant herein, was required to wear that shoe in his right leg, so that the leg would be corrected in due course of time. But when he used that shoe, then he felt some difficulties. He again contacted respondent No. l, but he advised the appellant to continue using that shoe. It is alleged that, that shoe caused further deformity in the right leg of the appellant and was shortened by 1.5". When complainant met with the respondents, then he was scolded by them. When he contacted other doctors, then it was told to him that shoe of the left leg, which was given to him for wearing in right leg had caused deformity. Thus, deficiency in service, has been alleged on the ground that a wrong and defective shoe, was given by the respondents to the appellant/complainant for use, which caused deformity in the leg and he had become permanently disabled. A notice was given by the appellant to the respondent through his Advocate and a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, alleging the aforesaid deficiency.

(3.) IN reply, respondent No. l, has averred that on 11.10.2003, appellant himself left the Medical College Hospital against the medical advise of the doctors during treatment there, voluntarily. At that time, respondent No. l was not posted in the Medical College Hospital and he never contacted the appellant nor there was any occasion for him to contact him there. In fact at that time, he was posted in District Hospital, Sarona, Raipur. The appellant came to his residence for the first time on 17.12.2003 i.e. after about more than two months from the date of incident and the date when he left the Medical College Hospital. It has been averred that respondent No. l is a Orthopaedic Surgeon having 30 years of experience. It has been stated that the appellant, was having fracture of right femur, which was operated by respondent No. l and on account of that operation, there was union of the Fractured Bone, a rod was implanted by him, which was lateron removed in Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. After operation, the appellant was advised to take Physiotherapy and exercises, but he avoided those advise and started moving here and there on his own, which caused trouble to him. On 22.4.2004, he fell down from his Scooter. At that time again he came to respondent No. l and till that time he was fully satisfied with the treatment given by respondent No. l. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. l. No such implement was given by him to the appellant which caused any deformity. The shortening of the leg was on account of malunion of other fracture of the same leg, for which the appellant himself is responsible as he had not taken proper treatment after incident and have left the Medical College Hospital on his own and then taken Indigenous Treatment at Kapsi, resulting in stiffness of the knee and shortening of leg because of malunion. Thus, the allegation of deficiency in service and medical negligence has been totally denied. Respondent No. 2, who happens to be owner of Nursing Home, also denied the allegations regarding deficiency in service on the premise that he was not present, when the appellant was operated in the Nursing Home of respondent No. 2. He held not given service as medical person and there is no allegation that the appellant had suffered anything on account of any deficiency in service on the part of Nursing Home of respondent No. 2.