DULIPUDI SRINIVAS Vs. PARASA YOGALINGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts as emerge from a reading of the complaint are that the complainant who is a tractor mechanic, Machilipatnam sustained injury to his left leg in a road accident on 4.8.1995 approached the opposite party Orthopaedic Surgeon, hereinafter called ˜the doctor. On examination the doctor diagnosed the problem as fracture of Tibial Plethora with an open wound. He applied Plaster of Paris (POP) on open wound which is opposed to all medical practices, as a result of which the complainant suffered swelling over his left thigh, knee, leg along with tenderness with multiple blisters around the leg, loss of sensation from middle 1/3rd and finally the leg was amputated making him cripple for the rest of his life. The complainant had to suffer this disability at the age of 28 years on account of the careless treatment given by the doctor and he had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 50,000/ - for the treatment at NIMS, Hyderabad, consequently he had to give up his lucrative business of tractor mechanism earning Rs. 3,000/ - to Rs. 4,000/ - a month. Hence he claims a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs towards loss of earnings, Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony, Rs. 50,000/ - towards treatment, totalling to Rs. 7,50,000/ -.

(2.) IN the written version filed by the doctor it is admitted that the complainant sustained a leg injury in a road accident on 4.8.1995. He approached the opposite party through a common friend Mr. Devi on 4.8.1995 at about 10.00 p.m. for first -aid. The opposite party was running only a clinic -cum -residence. Immediately he attended on the complainant by giving first -aid and advised them to go to Government Hospital for further treatment as the opposite party had no facilities for treatment and since it is a medico legal case as the complainant along with two persons driving Luna in a drunken state met with a road side accident. It is denied that he applied plaster of paris as alleged. But the complainant instead of going to Government Hospital approached him again on 6.9.1995. On examination he observed that the complainant took country side treatment and noticed swelling on the leg and suspected that gas gangrene has developed after 36 hours due to complainants negligence. As the complainant did not approach the Government Hospital as advised but obtained country side treatment, negligence on his part is writ large. He has discharged his duty as a doctor by giving first -aid and proper advice and, therefore, there is no negligence on his part.

(3.) THE complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 besides examining one S.V. Subba Rao as P.W. 2 and filed Exs. A -1 to A -64. The opposite party also examined himself as R.W. 1 and filed Exs. B -1 to B -3. Dr. V.B.N. Prasad Rao, Professor and Head of Orthopaedic Department, Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences was examined as C.W. 1 and marked Exs. C -1 to C -4.