PARAMJIT SINGH GREWAL Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by Dr. Paramjit Singh Grewal challenging the order dated 25. 5. 2000 passed by the State Commission, Punjab in Appeal No. 285 of 1999 whereby the appeal of the respondent herein, Shri Charanjit Singh Chawla, (Original Complainant) was allowed and the order of the District Forum, Amritsar dated 27. 1. 1999 dismissing the complaint was set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows : the respondent, Shri Charanjit Singh Chawla, while going on a scooter met with an accident at 9. 30 p. m. on 26. 1. 1998 and approached the revision petitioner Dr. Paramjit Singh Grewal, an Orthopaedic Surgeon whose hospital was close by. He got the respondent admitted in his hospital in the early hours on 27. 1. 1998. The petitioner recorded in his notes that there was tenderness and swelling of the right shoulder of the respondent. After diagnosis and x-rays it was found that there is dislocation of right shoulder. The respondent was advised an open reduction of his right shoulder to which the petitioner obtained the respondent's consent. The Doctor performed an operation of 'open reduction' under general anaesthesia on 28. 1. 1998 and discharged the respondent on 4. 2. 1998 and some medicines were prescribed. The respondent was asked to come back on 9. 2. 1998 when the stitches were removed. The patient was asked to do some prescribed exercises of the elbow and he was allowed pendulum movements and was advised to come after two weeks. However, the patient began complaining about continuing pain in the shoulder and met the Doctor on 13. 2. 1998, 18. 2. 1998, 2. 3. 1998 and on 16. 3. 1998. He was asked to come back after three weeks.

(3.) HOWEVER, according to the respondent, as the pain in the shoulder was persisting, he consulted in quick succession six other doctors during the period from 23. 3. 1998 to 27. 4. 1998. It is his version that the revision petitioner did not perform the operation in a professional manner and that the persisting pain was due to negligence in performing the operation. He further stated that an x-ray was taken on 16. 3. 1998 which showed that a chip of the head of humerus was lying separate; that the revision petitioner in a mala fide manner recorded "x-ray o. k. ", that the separated chip was not put at the proper place while performing the operation and that the petitioner is negligent in performing the operation.