NAMDEO EKNATH GHONGE Vs. RUBY HALL CLINIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS consumer complaint is pertaining to alleged negligence on the part of the surgeon, treating Doctor -Opposite Party No. 2 Dr. E.P. Patil (since deceased proceeding against him stood abated) and deficiency in service on the part of the Hospital staff when Complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No. 1 hospital during the period 3.5.1994 to 26.7.1994.

(2.) IT is the case of the Complainant that at the time of incident of murderous assault on him on 3.5.1994, he was working as machinist in Bajaj Auto Co. Ltd. He was also a labour union leader. After the assault on him, in seriously injured condition, he was admitted in Opposite Party No. 1 hospital. He was immediately attended by the medical official Dr. V.S. Khare and was admitted as an indoor patient. He had several stab injuries and his femur bone was also got fractured. He was treated by different expert doctors for the femur bone injury. Opposite Party No. 2 -Dr. E.P. Patil was one of such treating doctors and operating surgeon. With reference to the condition of the Complainant as far as femur bone is concerned, he was first operated on 10.5.1994. It is alleged by the Complainant that at the time of performing the operation and thereafter post -operative care was not properly taken and late Dr. E.P. Patil and the nursing staff of the hospital are responsible for the same. While doing the operation, in his left thigh, cotton bandage was left and as a result thereof there was pus in the injury and the union of his fractured femur bone did not take place. When wife of Complainant contacted late Dr. E.P. Patil, he apologized for the mistake and requested to bring the Complainant to him again to do the needful. However, convinced that he would not be treated properly at Opposite Party No. 1 hospital, Complainant got himself admitted in Yashwantrao Chavan Hospital of the Municipal Corporation on 25.10.1994 and where part of the femur bone was required to be removed. He was admitted there for about four months. However, his injury did not heal and ultimately he lost his leg. Alleging deficiency in service as stated earlier, this consumer complaint was filed on or about 2.4.1998.

(3.) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 Hospital resisted the consumer complaint as per their written version dated 22.6.1999 and denied the averments made against it in toto. It further claimed that it is one of the foremost well equipped hospitals in the region and also furnished details of treatment received by the Complainant at their hospital and submitted that there was no negligence either on the part of Opposite Party No. 2 - Dr. E.P. Patil or the nursing staff and that the Complainant had received proper post -operative treatment at their hospital. Considering the complications and multiple injuries suffered by the Complainant and the nature of operation which was carried on the Complainant in respect of his femur bone, formation of pus was a known complication and all necessary steps as per prescribed norms of treatment, were taken. After the Complainant was discharged on 26.7.1994 he was advised to come daily for dressing, but, he attended only once and thereafter, he did not come to them at all. There was no negligence on the part of the hospital.