PRAVEEN KAPOOR Vs. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the complainant's case is that she slipped down from steps on 22.1.1997 and she was taken to KHM Hospital at Anna Nagar, where reduction was done and she was discharged on 23.1.1997. She developed pain and swelling in the right elbow and, therefore, she consulted the 1st opposite party and paid him a sum of Rs.100/- towards consultation fees. X-ray was taken at Anna Nagar X-rays, Anna Nagar Western Extension. On seeing the X-ray, the 1st opposite party stated that there was fragmentation of bone in the right elbow which has to be removed by a surgery. Therefore, the complainant was advised to get herself admitted in the 2nd opposite party hospital. Hence, the complainant agreed for surgery. Therefore, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the 1st opposite party. She further paid a sum of Rs.5,100/- towards other expenses. She was discharged on 9.2.1997 from the Nursing Home. She attended the 2nd opposite party Nursing Home daily for post-surgery treatment. She later took an X-ray on the advice of the opposite parties and the Radiologist gave opinion that there was "fracture of proximal end of right radius with displaced fragments seen". Thus the complainant came to know that the fragmentation of bone was not removed at the time of surgery for which purpose she underwent operation in the 2nd opposite patty. She consulted the 1st opposite party and enquired about the non-removal of the fragmentation of bone, but she was not given a convincing reply. Thus there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint has been filed.

(2.) The 1st opposite party contended that the complainant's husband's friends were working at the ESI Hospital and through them the complainant approached this opposite party for opinion regarding the injury sustained by the complainant. It was then suggested that the complainant undergoes surgery at the Government Hospital since they were eligible for free treatment. A week after that, the 1st opposite party saw the complainant's husband at the 2nd opposite party's hospital and came to know that the complainant's husband is a close friend of the owner of the 2nd opposite party hospital. The 1st opposite party does not have any consultation at his residence. He is residing at No.1854, 6th Avenue, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai. It is not true to say that the complainant consulted the 1st opposite party at his residence and paid Rs.100/-. The 1st opposite party never advised the complainant to take X-ray at Anna Nagar. On seeing the X-ray this opposite party found that comminution of bones were found in the right elbow and, therefore, suggested surgery as otherwise it may cause stiffness and disability in the right hand. Further, he advised surgery only at the Government Hospital. The nature of the injury sustained is a fracture in the right elbow which is medically called as comminuted fracture head of the radius. One of the fragments was entrapped in soft tissue of the right forearm. Therefore, this opposite party said that he would remove all the fragments except one fragment lying in the soft tissue since the removal of the same may damage the nerves in that area. This opposite party never received Rs.5,000/- from the complainant or the complainant's husband. The complainant was admitted on 5.2.1997 and the surgery was performed on 6.2.1997 and she was discharged on 9.2.1997. All the fragments of the bone except one fragment embedded in the soft tissue near the median nerve were removed. Leaving the fragment would not cause any hindrance to the normal functioning of the hand or blood circulation of the hand. On the other hand, if it is sought to be removed, it may damage the essential nerves and affect the movement of the hand. The fragments removed were handed over to the complainant's husband. The X-ray and the report dated 22.2.1997 only reflect that the fragment of bone was not removed by the opposite party. If the X-ray taken before the surgery and the X-ray taken after the surgery are compared, it would clearly prove the truth of this opposite party's version. As the complainant underwent reduction at KHM Hospital, this opposite party refused to give a certificate. Therefore, enraged by the same, the present complaint has been filed. The operation was performed free of cost. There is no negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party.

(3.) The 2nd opposite party contended that the complainant approached the 1st opposite party at whose instance for the purpose of utilising the surgical facilities and post-operative care, the complainant was admitted in the Nursing Home of the 2nd opposite party. All through she was under the care of the 1st opposite party. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party is not attached to the Nursing Home of the 2nd opposite party. Insofar as the 2nd opposite party is concerned, all necessary treatments were given by them to the complainant. The post-operative period was uneventful. One of the fragments had embedded itself in the flesh near the median nerve. It is to be pointed out that the complainant has not taken any further steps to remove the said fragment. The other allegations are denied.