LAWS(MPCDRC)-2005-11-1

RAJKUMAR KHILWANI Vs. PANKAJ GUPTA

Decided On November 24, 2005
Rajkumar Khilwani Appellant
V/S
PANKAJ GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arises from the order dated 28.1.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jabalpur in Case No. 797/2003 dismissing complaint of appellant against respondent -Dr. Pankaj Gupta and his hospital Uday Nursing Home, Jabalpur claiming damages for the alleged medical negligence on the part of respondents in the matter of performance of operation of his right car.

(2.) THE facts as unfolded by the evidentiary material on record and which could not be disputed before us at the time of hearing of the appeal are these:

(3.) THE grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that respondent No. 1 -doctor was negligent in performing operation of his right ear which resulted into total loss of hearing of that ear. It was alleged that damage to the labyrinthine was caused during operation as also for want of post -operative care at respondent No. 2 -hospital. The complainant thus claimed compensation of Rs. 10,50,000 from respondents. Respondents in their reply denied any negligence in performance of the operation or in the matter of post -operative care of the complainant. It was contended that while the left ear of the complainant was totally dead, the Audiogram of the right ear revealed severe to profound loss of hearing of that ear. There was pus formation and discharge from the ear and the tympanomastoid surgery of that ear was performed with limited purpose to clear that ailment and repaired the fistula at foot plate. A space was also created by placing a TORP for future prospects and tympanic membrane was repaired by putting a graft. All this, it was asserted, was done as per standard medical practice. Damage to labyrinthine was pre -existing and no immediate action for cochlear implanation could be undertaken by the respondents at that point of time inasmuch as surgery for cochlear implanted done in a dry ear. It was further explained that respondent No. 1 does not undertake surgery for cochlear implantation.