VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. RUPLAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Ruplal Yadav, the complainant was operated for hydrosil by Dr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, OP in Jeevan Rekha Poly Clinic, Narayanpur, P.S. Narayanpur, District Jamtara, on 03.02.2008. Before operation, the complainant was given three injections which caused burning and swelling. Thereafter, the complainant was examined at Ranchi Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS). There it transpired that burning was due to wrong injections given to him. His right arm was amputated from elbow joint on 15.02.2008. The complainant lodged a complaint regarding medical negligence against the OP on 09.04.2008. The District Forum directed the OP to pay Rs.4,50,000/ - for medical negligence, Rs.30,000/ - for medical expenses and treatment jointly with Jeevan Rekha Poly Clinic to the complainant. Costs of Rs.10,000/ - was also awarded in favour of the complainant.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by that order, the OP filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same vide order dated 11.09.2012. Now, the OP has approached this Commission in revision petition.

(3.) WE have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that there is no evidence that the negligence of petitioner is involved in this case. There is no evidence that the gangrene was occurred due to any injection. The fact of development of gangrene was not denied by the petitioner but he explained that he may have caused this dreadful problem. The petitioner does not deny the factum of amputation of right arm. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the report of expert. Dr. Nawal Kishore Jha. His evidence was recorded as PW -4. He deposed that Ruplal Yadav was admitted to the Surgery Department of RIMS, on 07.02.2008. He deposed that Dr. Marshan, working under him had admitted the complainant after treating the patient and found that there was blackening of right hand from two days. He admitted that the patient had undergone the operation of his hydrosil and was injected on the right arm and as a consequence, the right hand had blackened. The Doctor also sought second opinion from Dr.J.Prasad, who is the Head of the Department and has advised the operation. He admitted that the amputation of the patient was done by taking elbow joint. This is called disagiticulation. In his cross -examination, he stated that the disease which had occurred to the patient in the right hand cannot be said with certainty that it has occurred due to the injection. He testified that the disease which has occurred to the complainant is called gangrene and the same is caused due to several reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the expert advice is vague, evasive and leads us nowhere. We find no force in these arguments. In his written statement, the OP stated that it is not part of his job to give injection. It was explained that injection was given in the right hand by Nursing Staff. The OP has not denied either the development of gangrene or the amputation of right hand. In Para Nos. 7 and 8, the State Commission was pleased to hold as under: