VIKRANT SAXENA Vs. RAGHVENDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is against the impugned order dated 23.11.2017 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Jaipur (for short State Commission ) whereby the appeal was allowed and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dholpur, Rajasthan (for short District Forum ) was set- aside .

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are, on 25.04.2015 the complainant Vikram Saxena ( for short the patient ) sustained injury to his right leg due to slipped motorcycle and admitted in Gupta Haddi Hospital at Dholpur under care of Dr. Raghavendra Saxena (OP-1). The patient was operated by OP-1 on 26.04.2015 and implanted a screw in the fractured bone of the right leg and discharged on 27.04.2015. However, complainant did not get any relief, the alignment of the leg was not proper and it was titled. On the same day patient visited another Orthopedician Dr. Anil Kumar Varshney, at Agra who advised another operation. Dr. Anil Kumar Varshney conducted the operation on 30.07.2015 and patient was under his follow-up till 15.10.2015. The complainant alleged that the OP-1 negligently performed the operation and the screw was not implanted properly which resulted in non-union of bone and the leg became short by 1 inch and he became permanently disabled. Being aggrieved by the alleged wrong treatment and negligence complainant suffered great physical and mental agony, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) The OP-1 denied the allegations by filing written version. OP-1 submitted that after an informed consent he operated the patient s fracture of right tibial condyle and the screws were implanted. The patient was discharged in a fit condition with the pucca plaster was put. The patient was advised complete rest for one month and avoid weight bearing on the operated leg. But, the patient did not follow the advice; he joined the duty and deliberately put weight on the leg. Therefore, there was displacement of the implanted screw. It was happened due to the negligence of the complainant himself and therefore he had to undergo a second operation. The complainant has not placed any record to prove that he was absent from his duty for a period of 108 days due to the fracture treatment and took rest. It was a fraudulent claim and there was no fault of OP-1. The OP- 2 insurance co. contended that if the medical negligence is not proved on against OP- 1, there is no liability of insurance co.