DEVADOSS Vs. N ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant was involved in a road accident and was admitted in the hospital of the opposite party for treatment. The complainant suffered Intra Capsular Fracture Neck of Femur Rt . Therefore, operation for DHS Fixation C Bone Crafting was done. After the fixation of bone crafting, the complainant continued to have pain. There was infection. Though, he again went back to the opposite party, there was no improvement in his condition and, therefore, he went to Kovai Medical Centre. There, it was found that DHS + Fibular Craft had become infected and in the discharge summary of Kovai Medical Centre, we find that X -Ray right hip shows : "Failed DHS Migration of screw Avascular changes of femoral head early OA changes." Therefore, removal of DHS plate which was infected and Girdle stone excisional Arthroplasty was done. Thus, from the discharge summary of Kovai Medical Centre, it is clear that the earlier operation done by the opposite party was not properly done in that the screw had come loose. There was infection and there was unhealthy granulation or tissue seropurulent discharge. The Bone and plate were exposed. There was heavy growth of staphylococcus aureus. Thus, the DHS right was found infected with Avascular changes of femoral head. There was migration of screw and early OA changes. Fibular Craft had become infected. There was a shortening of the limb by 1 cm. Condition of discharge from Kovai Medical Centre was patient was able to walk with walker. Wound was healing.

(2.) THUS , the above facts would point out clearly that the DHS operation done at the hospital of the 1st opposite party had not been properly done. Further, after the operation, proper treatment and attention was not given with the result the infection was not controlled causing pain and swelling to the complainant. Therefore, it was that he had to go to Kovai Medical Centre for further treatment. Thus, these facts speak for themselves. The opposite parties have not produced the case sheet or other records to show that the operation was done in accordance with procedure following the accepted method. Therefore, this is a clear case where deficiency has been established by the complainant. The finding of the Lower Forum, therefore, cannot be upset. We do not find any reason to hold that the reasoning of the Lower Forum is in any way perverse or opposed to either law or facts. There is sufficient evidence on the complainant s side to prove negligence and deficiency. The opposite party has not either chosen to examine himself or produce the case sheet or records to prove that all care and caution had been taken and that what had happened was an unexpected complication or was the expected risk. On the other hand, we find that the surgery has not been properly done and the post operative treatment was also not to the satisfaction. The expected skill and attention is not there in this case. The appellant opposite parties have failed to discharge their duty as a doctor by observing all care and caution in treating the patient. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that this appeal is devoid of merits.

(3.) IN the result, this appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/ - confirming the order passed by the Lower Forum.