B G NINGAPPA Vs. MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has filed this complaint seeking for compensation of Rs. 8,88,600 from the opposite parties (for short, "OPs").

(2.) THE facts in this case are as follows:

(3.) OPS 1 and 2 have filed their version denying the averments of the complainant insofar as the negligence is concerned. In the version it is stated that OP -1 Doctor had examined the complainant in detail with due care and attention. The complainant had short stature, was poorly nourished and had general features of Multiple Epiphyseal Dysplasia a hereditary developmental disease due to abnormal growth of ends of long bones and several members in the family are affected. It is further stated that the complainant s knee was kept stiff at 60 degree with inability to strengthen locked knee. These facts were discussed by OP -1 with the relatives of the complainant. Thereafter, OP -1 explained the need for opening the joint in surgical procedure under anesthesia to excise the smaller fragments, to fix the larger fragments mentioned along with the need for plaster of paris application and secondary procedures. Thereafter, after obtaining the consent of the complainant, OP -1 conducted the surgery as per the mode referred to at para 8(a) of the version. It is further stated in the version that the stability and fixation was checked on the operating table and found to be satisfactory. However, in the post -operative days, according to the OPs, the complainant was highly un -cooperative and had walked out of the bed on several occasions against the advice. This was also explained in detail to the relatives of the complainant. Check X -ray taken on 12.1.2001 revealed satisfactory fixation along with the K -wires. The further averment in the version is that the complainant continued to be un -cooperative which resulted in displacement, construction of loose body and clear gap. The osteochondral loose body was found to be black discoloured shrunken, un -united and hence removed along with K -wires. It is further stated that even the second opinion obtained by the complainant from Dr. K. Srinivasan was also of the same opinion regarding diagnosis and steps of treatment. It is stated in the version that OP -1 has given proper treatment and has done proper surgery to the complainant. But in spite of giving proper treatment, if the complainant could not get the estimated relief, it cannot be said that the Doctors are responsible, as Doctors can only guarantee or assure care and never guarantee or assure cure. The sum and substance of the defence of the OPs is that there is no negligence on the part of the OPs in the matter of procedure and treatment and, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.