PAWAN KUMAR KAMRA Vs. J C HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None responds on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) THE complaint of Sri Pawan Kumar Kamra was dismissed as time barred on 3.8.1994 by the District Consumer Forum, Shahjehanpur. Sri Pawan Kumar suffered injuries some time during the games he might have played. He was a 5th class student at that time. He was taken to Dr. J.C. Gupta's care and treatment. Dr. J.C Gupta examined the boy and administered plaster to his leg, which had resulted in unbearable pain. The leg has irreparably suffered on account of the tight plaster and therefore, it had developed gangrene. His treatment continued for about 10 -12 years and in the year 1992 his leg was subjected to five surgical operations. It was in these circumstances that he filed his complaint ten years after he was treated. In our considered opinion it was a satisfactory explanation. The complainant was 11 years of age when he suffered injury which could not immediately come to notice. But when he felt pain he was taken for examination to Dr. J.C Gupta who treated him and administered plaster to the affected leg, It was this plaster which proved as pleaded by the complainant, to be disastrous. On account of the tightness of the plaster, the free flow of blood in the veins was adversely affected and as pleaded by the complainant the bones and flash had rotten. The merit of these averments along with the alleged plea of medical negligence on the part of the respondent doctor would be looked into and examined when both the parties file their evidence.

(3.) THE complaint was summarily dismissed on the ground of limitation. No doubt, apparently a lapse often years period appeared to be a good ground for rejection of the complaint as time barred but the Forum below has not at all gone into the merit of the explanation offered by the complainant. The details of the treatment and surgical operations have been clearly stipulated in the complaint and it was on the basis of these averments that condonation of delay was sought for. The five times plastic surgery was conducted in the year 1992 and this shows that the complainant was all through under the treatment of one doctor or the other. Naturally his family members would have first taken care of his leg and when there were signs of improvement and restoration of the leg they felt comfortable and thought of filing a complaint in a Court of Consumer Protection.