SANDEEP ARORA Vs. AGARWAL ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Watchful waiting" is one of the option, also called as related to Masterly Inactivity or Expectant Management is a 'hands-off management' philosophy in which certain medical conditions are closely monitored, but treatment is withheld until symptoms either appear or some measurable parameter changes. 1. Both the Appeals have been filed against the Order dated 09.05.2018, passed by the UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the 'State Commission') which allowed the Complaint No. C-2002/23. For convenience, the facts are drawn from FA/1323/2018 and the Parties are placed as represented in the Complaint.

(2.) Brief facts are that Mr. Sandeep Arora, Complainant No. 1 (for short the 'patient') suffered scooter accident on 04.08.2000 and suffered fracture to his left hand. Initially, he consulted Dr. T.N. Gupta at Deoria. X-ray showed fracture of Humerus (arm) and took treatment for 4 days. Thereafter on 09.08.2000 he approached Dr. R. A. Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 2) at Agarwal Orthopaedic Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 1) at Gorakhpur. The Opposite Party No. 2 examined the patient and advised for surgical correction of fracture and the patient got admitted in the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital. As the Titanium Rod was to be obtained from Delhi, the operation was fixed for 13.08.2000. The Opposite Party No. 2 operated the patient on 13.08.2000 and fixed the Titanium Closed Interlocking Rod with 4 screws in the fractured Humerus bone. The Complainant alleged that the rod and the screws were oversized and were not fixed properly. It was further alleged that on 14.08.2000, the Opposite Party No. 2 examined the X-ray of patient's left arm which showed the interlocking rod and screws were oversized and a gap visible between the broken bones. The Complainants were apprehensive and they asked the Opposite Party No. 2 to get another X-ray done on 16.08.2000 to check whether the gap had increased, but the Opposite Party No. 2 advised the patient to continue the medicines as the bone was uniting. The patient was discharged from the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital on 18.08.2000, though he had pain in his left hand. Thereafter, on 16.01.2001, the patient got himself examined in the District Hospital, Deoria and the fresh X-ray showed the gap was more and the bones were not united. The doctors therein suggested the patient to undergo another operation. Thereafter, patient went to Mariampur Hospital at Kanpur and got operated on 31.01.2001, wherein the Titanium close interlocking rod was removed and bone grafting with plating was done. The post-operative X-ray showed the bone was united. Being aggrieved by the alleged negligence during the operation, the Complainants filed the Complaint before the State Commission and prayed compensation for loss of income, mental and physical stress to the patient and his family members.

(3.) The Opposite Parties filed their written statement and denied the allegations of the wrong treatment. The patient was admitted in the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital on 09.08.2000. He brought the X-ray and prescription of Dr. T.N. Singh dated 04.08.2000. X-ray showed a fracture shaft of left Humerus. The operation of Titanium closed interlocking rod was done on 13.08.2000, as per standard procedure. The X-ray taken on 16.8.2000 showed proper position of rod and there was no gap between the fractured area. The Opposite Party No. 1 denied the penetration of screws and rod into the muscles, which was not possible for such a long period. The patient did not follow the instructions for physiotherapy. He was in good condition when the stitches were removed. The Opposite Parties further submitted that the patient, over phone, informed Opposite Party No. 2 that he fell down from his bed and suffering from pain in his left hand. The patient was called on 11.11.2000, the X-ray of his hand showed that the screws were loose with a minor gap. However, the rod was in correct place and the fractured bone showed proper alignment with new bone formation. Patient was advised to wait as the minor gap would be covered by the new formation of bone. The patient, thereafter, did not turn up to the Opposite Party No. 1 hospital.