T P HUSSAINAR Vs. P K USMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the complainant challenging the order of the District Forum, dismissing his complaint.

(2.) THE further case of the complainant is that the O.P. had removed the implant along with three screws out of five used for embedding the implant to the bone. While so doing, according to the complainant, the head of one of the two screws remained in the bone as it was chipped away. It is further stated that on his discharge on 15.7.1996, he went home, and subsequently, he felt stringing pain in his left thigh and this has made the complainant to approach the opposite party again. The further case of the complainant is that, he again got himself admitted at the High Land Hospital on 10.8.1996 and he was an in -patient in the said hospital till 19.8.1996 under the treatment of the O.P. According to the complainant, the treatment given by the O.P. did not improve the position though he was discharged on 19.8.1996. As there is no improvement, the complainant got himself admitted as an in -patient in the City Hospital, Mangalore on 16.9.1996. In the said hospital, one Dr. Shantharam Shetty, an Orthopaedic Surgeon has done sinus excision and discharged him on 17.10.1996. The grievance of the complainant is that the pain and other complication arose on account of the rough handling in the attempt to remove the implant by the O.P. as stated by Dr. Shantharam Shetty.

(3.) THE case of the opposite party before the District Forum is that subsequent to the internal fixation, fracture had united and the complainant was able to work. Thereafter, the complainant had come couple of times for check up. X -ray was taken which showed early signs of avascular necrosis of the head of femur which was a progressive disease and it is a common complication of the fracture neck of femur, and, therefore, he is adviced hospitalization for removal of the implant. The further defence put forward by the O.P. is that the complainant had not followed the advise in the earlier stage and after two years he came to him again and the X -ray taken showed the signs of secondary esto -orthosis of the hip of the joint and the removal of the implant was done during the course of which, a portion of the screw thread broke in the shaft of femur. It is further stated that the screw that was left behind could not be removed as it required drilling and the drilling would have caused weakening of the bone. The opposite party further denied the negligence or deficiency in service on his part.