KRISHNA MURARI SINHA Vs. MD BASHEER ALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed in Complaint Case No. 31/1997 decided on 26th December, 2001 by Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the complaint of Krishna Murari.

(2.) The case of the complainant/appellant is that while travelling in a bus he sustained injury in his left knee along with some minor injuries in other parts of body when the bus turned turtle. He was initially attended to by Dr. Satyendra Kumar Singh. His knee and back were x-rayed. He was advised to consult some expert. Accordingly, he contracted respondent/opposite party, Dr. Md. Basheer Alam and remained under his treatment from 18th November, 1996 to 26th November, 1996. On 22rd November, 1996 his knee was operated upon by the opposite party. The patella was removed and he plastered the entire leg upto the thigh. He referred to him to a Physiotherapist. But there was no relief in bending his knee. Thereafter he consulted Dr. R.C. Ram on 28th February, 1997 who suggested that he will have to be re-operated on account of the stiffness. He again contacted opposite party, Dr. Mohd. Basheer Alam on 3.3.1997, who recommended for further physiotherapy. On 4th March, 1997 he met Dr. B. Mukhopadhyay who allegedly gave an impression that in such cases of operation plastering was unnecessarily done and patella was not required to be removed for it could be joined. On 23rd April, 1997 he went to CMC Vellore where he was admitted on 12th May, 1997 and operation was performed on 13th May, 1997. By this operation there was some improvement and the movement was upto 90% and he was given an impression that the stiffness was caused due to unnecessary plaster and there was no need to remove the patella as it could be joined. The complainant preferred complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 9 lakh.

(3.) The opposite party/respondent contested the matter inter alia alleging that complaint was misconceived, frivolous and prompted by greed of extracting money. The complainant alleged negligence and complained of application of old method in his treatment but did not produce any evidence in this regard. The treatment given was one of the standard methods of treatment by removing the patella in appropriate case depending upon pre-operative assessment as well as direct visual assessment of the case on operation table. Nearly all operations of Patella were followed by plaster till soft tissue healed. The final outcome of medical or surgical treatment depended upon many factors including the initial condition for which opinion or treatment was sought for and some of the results and final outcome were beyond the control of professionals. Merely because of the fact that final outcome was not ideal and to the satisfaction of the patient, it was not the proof of negligence.