LEKSHMANAN Vs. R SREEKANTAN M S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the unsuccessful complainant who lost before the State Commission and District Forum. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum for compensations on the allegation that the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not treat the complainant with care and diligence required of them. He approached the opposite parties 1 and 2 for treatment of Vericose Vein on his leg. He was advised surgery. He got himself admitted on 13.9.1993 in the nursing home of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, agreed for the operation as he was assured that the recovery would be within 4 or 5 days of the operation. The operation was conducted on 13th September, 1998. Immediately after 2 days of the operation he had suffered acute pain and his condition became bad, despite treatment and he was referred to Kottayam Medical College and Hospital on the 36th day. When the complainants came to know at the Kottayam Medical College Hospital that the leg had to be amputated, he came back. He was again sent to the Trivandrum Medical College and his right leg was amputated above the knee and he was discharged on 15.11.1993. His case before the District Forum was that from the Medical College and Hospital, Kottayam as well as the Trivandrum Medical College, he came to know that his right leg had to be amputated because of the negligent treatment given by the opposite parties 1 and 2. He claimed a compensation of total sum of Rs. 4,31,000/-. The parties were given opportunity to place material on record.

(2.) After due consideration of the material placed on record, the District Forum returned the finding that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in treating the complainant and dismissed the complaint. The complainant approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission after reappraisal of the entire evidence dismissed the appeal. The State Commission made the following observation :

(3.) In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by both the Fora. The revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.