RANDHIR Vs. INSCOL TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 2.6.2004, the complainant Shri Randhir Garg, an Architect by profession and son of Shri D. C. Dhaula (Garg), Advocate has filed this appeal. The Complaint Case No.776 of 1999 was filed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) against Director, INSCOL Tertiary Care Hospital (for short hereinafter to be referred as Inscol Hospital) and Dr. Kuldip Singh claiming compensation for medical negligence in the treatment of the complainant.

(2.) The complaint case mainly raised disputes regarding the operating surgeon using rusted nails at the time of surgery, which resulted in complications. The other grievance was that without carrying out sensitivity test, Betadine was applied to the complainant who was allergic to the said medicine. The operating surgeon was not qualified to perform the surgery, which was carried out negligently resulting in non-union of bone and it necessitated second surgery. The other grievance was that the complainant was put on steroids without taking care of its consequences.

(3.) The complaint case was contested by the respondents who denied the allegations of medical negligence while performing surgery on the appellant. It was stated in the joint written statement by the respondents that the appellant was brought at the Inscol Hospital with a fracture in left arm and multiple bleeding injuries on 3.3.1999 and it was alleged that the appellant was involved in a car accident. According to the x-ray taken and various tests conducted, the respondents according to the settled medical opinion found it to be a case of commuted fracture of upper third of the left humerus and other multiple injuries in the form of abrasions and cuts. A surgery was necessitated to stabilize the fracture and it was diagnosed and explained to the patient i. e. , the complainant who was fully conscious. The patients and relatives of the appellant were also duly informed about the nature of operation and its consequences. The appellant as well as his parents agreed for the operation for bone reduction and internal fixation with any suitable device. It was alleged that in order to fix the fragments, various devices like nails, plates, screws etc. were required to be ready on operation table before the surgery was actually conducted. The most suitable implant is used during the operation and taking into consideration the nature of fragments and damage to the bone of the complainant. A rush pin/nail of proper size was used successfully and the fragments were approximated and immobilized adequately and the surgery yielded very good results.