ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SURESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts as stated in the complaint are that on 9.10.1996 complainant was going on his scooter when he met with an accident, as a result of which his left knee joint patella got fractured into pieces. Complainant had consulted the opposite party (hereinafter called O. P.) and hired the services for treatment as opposite party had assured cent percent healing of patella and the restoration of normal functioning of the leg. During the course of treatment, the opposite party operated upon the left knee joint patella portion on 9.10.1996. The complainant remained admitted in his hospital upto 18.10.1996. The injured leg of the complainant was put under plaster. A wire was also inserted to join and unite the broken pieces of patella. It is then stated in the complaint that after removal of plaster, it was discovered that the lower portion of patella had not united with the rest of patella and thus it was causing constant pain and movement of the complainant was also restricted and painful. It is then stated in the complaint that after some time the complainant again contacted opposite party and complained of pain in the knee joint. Opposite party advised him to undergo another operation. The complainant then consulted another Orthopaedic Specialist, Dr. Rajiv Saigal, who told him that during the operation conducted by the opposite party the lower portion of the patella was not united with rest of the patella and it was causing pain and restricted movement of the leg and that is why the normal functioning of the leg had not been restored. The complainant had been consulting the opposite party constantly and making complaint of pain and painful movement. The opposite party used to prescribe painkillers. It is then alleged in the complaint that the opposite party was negligent in rendering medical service to the complainant and failed to observe the standards of medical proficiency required of him. The opposite party had failed to unite the lower part of patella with rest of its part. The circumferential wire was also not properly inserted. The complainant was not properly medically treated by the opposite party. The opposite party was, thus, deficient in providing service to the complainant. Rs.15,000/- was claimed as spent on the treatment. Further compensation of Rs.35,000/- was demanded due to sufferance of business etc.

(2.) In reply filed by opposite party, it is stated that the complainant was brought by his family members in his hospital on 9.10.1996 for treatment of his injured left knee region. On clinical and radiological examination, the complainant had been found to have compound comminuted fracture patella. The complainant was advised surgery and it explained to him that either broken pieces of patella are required to be removed or attempt could be made to repair the patella by putting the wire around the same. The patient was admitted in the hospital for surgery with his consent and the opposite party decided to repair the fractured pieces of patella in view of the younger age of the complainant, which was the standard treatment. The complainant was given I. V. fluids and I. V. antibiotic cover. Under spinal anaesthesia given by the Anaesthesist under tourniquet control and under all aseptic conditions, fracture was exposed. All the fragments were held close to each other by self retaining towel clips. After maintaining articular congruency, a circumferential wire was put around all the fractured pieces of patella and the wire was tightened. Quardriceps expansions were repaired and wound was closed over a drain and plaster was applied. Thereafter the patient was shifted in the ward in satisfactory condition and further treatment was given. Medicines were prescribed and administered. Thereafter. upto 18.10.1996 the dressing of the operated wound through window in the plaster were regularly changed and when the wound had become healthy, the complainant was discharged in satisfactory condition from the hospital. The complainant was advised to visit the hospital for further check-up from time to time. Thereafter, the complainant had come for treatment as OPD patient. The OPD record was retained by the patient, as the prescription slip was handed over to him. As per the photostat copy of the prescription slips produced by the complainant before the District Forum, plasters were changed twice on 18.11.1996 and 18.12.1996 and thereafter the complainant came up for follow up on 2.3.1997 and 5.12.1997. From the record produced on the file, the complainant appeared to have visited Dr. Salaria on 6.2.1997. On 5.12.1997 the complainant was advised wire removal, but to the best of knowledge of the opposite party, he did not get the wire removed, which could be the cause of pain complained by the complainant. Complainant was given proper, prescribed and accepted treatment as required to the particular case in view of the younger age of the complainant. The complainant had yet to undergo further treatment by way of removal of wire and removal of lower fragment of patella, in case, it continued to cause pain and problem to the complainant, even after the removal of wire.

(3.) Admittedly, no expert has been produced by the complainant to prove negligence of the opposite party. After removal of the plaster, it was discovered that lower portion of patella had not united with the rest of the patella. Plaster was changed twice on 18.11.1996 and on 18.12.1996 and the complainant had approached the opposite party for follow up action on 2.3.1997 and 5.12.1997 respectively. The complainant was still to undergo further treatment by the opposite party by way of removal of wire and removal of lower fragment of patella in case it continued to cause pain and problem to the complainant, even after removal of the wire. He stopped getting further treatment from the opposite party after removal of the wire, as advised.