K S SRIDHAR Vs. RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant met with a road accident on 2.4.1993 resulting in fracture of left hip joint. He was immediately shifted to Ashwini Surgical Nursing Home, where the OP being Orthopaedic surgeon advised him to undergo hip joint replacement. On his advice, the complainant submitted himself for hip joint replacement on 6.4.1993, done by the OP. After discharge from the Hospital, the complainant continued to have follow-up treatment under the OP as out-patient. Despite the follow-up treatment as advised by the OP, the complainant developed severe pain in his hip joint and found difficult to walk. On inquiry with the OP, he did not receive convincing explanation. Since the pain continued unabated, he consulted other doctors in Bangalore and was informed that his joint replacement ought not to have been performed in his case as such operation is advised only in case of patients above the age of 55 years and not for the patients below 55 years. According to those doctors, the proper treatment that should have given to him was closed reduction by immobilising fractured site. The complainant also contends that those doctors advised him to undergo further surgery for internal fixation. Accordingly, the complainant claims to have undergone corrective surgery in other Hospital incurring additional expenditure. Hence the complaint seeking direction to OP to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000 alleging deficiency of service against the OP.

(2.) Initially, the OP, having appeared in pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, did not choose to file version or to produce evidence. Based on the evidence produced by the complainant, this Commission passed order dated 20.7.2001 partly allowing the complaint and directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 for the medical negligence committed by the OP.

(3.) Aggrieved by that order, the OP preferred Appeal No.3 of 2002 on the file of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The complainant also preferred Appeal No.291 of 2001 contending that the amount of compensation awarded by this Commission is too low. The National Commission, by order dated 20.1.2006, remanded the matter to this Commission for fresh disposal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity to the OP to file his version along with his evidence. The National Commission, however, ordered the OP to pay Rs.50,000 as cost to the complainant.