RUPENDRA KUMAR SAHU Vs. AKHILESH DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order dated 9.10.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 400/2001, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), whereby the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the complainant met with an accident on 10.12.2000. He was taken to MMI Hospital, Raipur and after providing first aid, he was taken to Nursing Home of OP. After taking X -ray he was told that he has sustained fracture in the left leg. The patient was admitted and the OP told the complainant that operation would be required. On 12.12.2000, the complainant's left leg was operated and rod/nail was implanted and he was discharged on 21.12.2002. As per averments of the complaint, there was severe pain near thigh where the complainant had suffered fracture. On complaint being made in this regard the OP assured that it will gradually reduce and told that in cases of fixing of rod the patient suffers pain which subsides gradually. The complainant was advised to come after 10 days. It was specifically averred in the complaint that on the date of discharge itself the complainant had pain near the thigh and during subsequent visits also he continuously complained about pain at the spot of fracture but every time the OP doctor assured him that the pain will subside gradually. It was further averred in the complaint that on 29.1.2001 also when the complainant approached the OP doctor he made complaints regarding pain. X -ray was taken, OP opened the plaster, applied ointment and put bandage and prescribed some medicines. In the month of February also, the complainant approached the OP on 28.2.2001, and at that time also he made complaints regarding pain in his left leg. As per averments made in the complaint on 2.3.2001 the complainant approached Dr. Kedar Agrawal who after examining the patient and seeing X -ray, expressed the opinion that the rod put at the time of operation was not properly fixed but it was loose. Hence, the complainant was suffering from pain. Thereafter, the complainant consulted Dr. Anil Verma who also advised X -ray. He found that the rod was loose which caused pain. Dr. Anil Verma prescribed some medicines and asked the complainant to consult after 15 days. It was subsequently averred in the complaint that even after taking treatment for 6 months from the OP, the fractured bone could not be properly joined and the complainant continuously suffered pain. The complainant approached the OP doctor on 13.5.2001 also as he was also suffering from stiffening of knee. The OP admitted the complainant and operated upon the left knee. As per averments made in the complaint, as pain increased on 15.5.2001, the complainant contacted the OP and the compounder administered some injection, hence the pain subsided. However, after a period of 8 to 10 hours the pain again shooted up. On 18.5.2001, the complainant approached Dr. Rohit Mishra who after seeing old X -ray and other documents of treatment advised fresh X -ray and told the complainant that rod put at the time of operation was not properly fixed, hence the same will have to be changed as the bone has not properly joined. He also told that this would cause expenditure of Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000. Finally, as the complainant felt no relief, he consulted Dr. S. K. Mukherji on 24.5.2001 who after seeing X -ray, etc. and conducting medical examination of the complainant, opined that re -surgery would be required as previous operation was not properly done and the rod was not properly fixed. Dr. Mukherji asked the complainant to get admitted to Khemka Hospital where he was operated on 29.5.2001. It is averred in the complaint that the OP -1 had conducted surgery negligently causing immense pain to the complainant for a long period of more than 6 months. After surgery by Dr. Mukherji the patient became alright and started walking properly. Hence, the complaint was filed for claiming compensation.

(3.) OP resisted the complaint and averred in the written version that there was no deficiency in service in conducting the operation. The patient was operated on 12.2.2000 and was discharged on 21.12.2000 and there was no pain in his leg at the time of discharge. OP had conducted the operation as per settled norms. There was no infection when the stitches were opened on 20.12.2000, nor the complainant made any complaint that he was having pain. It was further averred that the complainant failed to do exercises as per instructions of the OP. After being discharged, the complainant came to OP on 29.1.2001 and at that time also he did not have any pain. It was further averred that the OP advised for X -ray and it was noticed that callus formation has started which shows that the process of union of bone had started. It was further averred in the written version that the rod or plate is implanted only to support the bone and after the bone properly joins, the implant is removed. He further submitted that even in case due to negligence of patient or accidentally, the implantation becomes loose, the same is not interfered with by reopening at least for a period of 6 months because of process of joining of bones. It was further averred that in the prescription given by Dr. Kedar Agrawal, the patient was not advised for re -operation but was advised to take medicines for 15 days. Dr. Anil Verma also gave similar advise and it does not appear from the prescription of Dr. Agrawal and Anil Verma that they had found the rod implanted by the OP to be loose. It was further averred that Dr. Mukherji has not stated that the rod was not properly implanted, he did not remove the rod but had done bone grafting for extra support. It was averred that in this way there is no material to show that the OP had committed any negligence or deficiency in treatment of the complainant.