MAHATAB ALAM KHAN Vs. GOPINATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the several judgments on Medical Negligence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that;

(2.) The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the Complainant was also dismissed. Hence, the Complainant/Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition.

(3.) We have perused records and heard the Counsel for both the parties. This Commission has appointed Mr. Vikas Nautiyal as Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the complainant. He vehemently argued that the OPs were negligent in the treatment who administered about 20 doses of injection 'KANCORT', unnecessarily. Also, it is contended that the OP-2 followed 'ILIZAROV' method for the treatment and the second operation was performed for removal of splint only and it was not a corrective treatment. The patient developed varus deformity; also it was not proper that, OP prescribed 14 hours of exercise daily. Counsel also submitted that, the cross-examination of OP-2 can be treated as expert evidence as OP-2 was a qualified Orthopedician. Thus, principle of res-ipsa-loquitur is to be applied in this case of medical negligence.