DARSHAN SINGH Vs. PAWAN BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein, Darshan Singh who was the original complainant before the District Forum has filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeals No.454/2001(Pb) and 154/07 which was decided in favour of Dr.Pawan Bansal and another, Respondents herein.

(2.) The facts of the case according to the Petitioner who is a farmer, is that while cultivating his fields with a tractor on 05.03.1996, he suffered a fracture in his left arm when the tractor overturned. His brother got him admitted in the Respondent/Doctor's nursing home and as per advice his arm was operated during which a nail was inserted in it. However, due to negligence of the Respondent/doctor soon after the operation, pus developed in the arm and Petitioner started experiencing severe pain and agony. Although, Petitioner remained admitted in the nursing home and under the treatment of the Respondent/doctor, the condition of his arm further deteriorated and because there was a possibility of gangrene seeting in which could have resulted in amputation of the Petitioner's arm, he left Respondent's nursing home on 12.02.1996 and got himself admitted in the Civil Hospital, Mansa where after being medically examined by one Dr.Ashok Kansal, Surgical Specialist, a second operation was conducted on 15.04.1996 when the old nail was removed and a new nail was inserted, Petitioner was informed by Dr.Kansal that the problem had occurred because the nail had been inserted in an unhygienic and wrong manner. Petitioner was discharged on 16.04.1996. Thereafter, Petitioner did not recover fully from the damage done to his arm because of the first surgery which resulted in its 60% disability due to the negligence of the Respondent/doctor. According to Petitioner, he had to spend more than Rs.50,000/- on his medical treatment. Being aggrieved by Respondent's negligence, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service and requested that he be paid a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs towards the expenses incurred including the suffering and the loss of proper use of one arm for his entire life.

(3.) The above contentions were denied by the Respondent/doctor who stated that as a qualified doctor he had taken all reasonable medical care required in dealing with the case including pre-operative precautions and administering antibiotics to avoid any infection. It was further contended that the nail which was inserted in the humerus bone got jammed due to variation in the canal cavity which can happen despite best medical care and treatment as per medical literature available on the subject and after detecting the jamming, Petitioner was assured that the nail would be detached within 3-4 weeks and a new nail inserted in its place. However, instead of listening to the correct medical advice, Petitioner ran away from the nursing home on 12.03.1996 without informing the Respondent and without adhering to medical advice to take the medicines prescribed by the Respondent/doctor. There was therefore no medical negligence on the part of the Respondent/doctor and the fault lay with the Respondent.