PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. N K VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in the Court below appeals against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 35/97 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder his complaint was dismissed under the following circumstances:

(2.) ON being noticed, the respondent doctor appeared and filed a petition with a prayer to call for the order of ex parte hearing which was allowed on payment of Rs. 50/ -. The respondent doctor then filed his response denying the allegations. The District Forum on hearing the parties and going through the materials available on record has passed the impugned order which is under challenge before us as stated above.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the order and submitted that the respondent doctor in course of treatment in conservative methods ought to have done manupulative reduction under radiographic control. He further submitted that the respondent doctor should have taken post reduction X -ray for confirmation of the reduction but unfrotunatedly, the basic requirement for treatment of such fractured injury has not been followed. It is further submitted that the respondent doctor should have adopted the operative reduction when manupulative reduction under the conservative methods has failed to achieve the desired results. It is then submitted that the respondent doctor should have referred the patient to some other better equipped hospital for the specialised treatment but the respondent doctor continued the treatment for such a long period but admittedly the complainant did not feel any improvement which amounts to deficiency on the part of the respondent doctor. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the respondent doctor, during the course of treatment, was having no facilities for fixing of fractured bone through the radiographic screen which is a deficiency in rendering the medical service on the part of the respondent. In sum and substance, the complainant has to suffer both mentally, physically and financially because of the laches and negligence on the part of the respondent doctor. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon expert opinion of Watson -Jones who is of the view that for achievement of cent percent result in such cases manupulative reduction can be achieved only by radiographic control through X -ray machine. According to the learned Counsel, the respondent doctor without taking X -ray of the fractured portion has administered the plaster of paris which is not a recognised treatment for such fractured case.