DR. AKHILESH CHANDRA GAUR Vs. MANIK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 27.07.2006, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in consumer complaint no. C/M/SC/01, vide which, the said complaint filed by the present respondent was allowed in part and the petitioner/OP was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainant.

(2.) The complainant/respondent, Manik Chand, Advocate, r/o Tilsai -Kala, Tehsil Kasganj, District Etah, Uttar Pradesh, stated in his complaint before the State Commission that he suffered fracture in both the bones of his right leg and got himself admitted at the nursing home run by the petitioner/OP doctor on 20.01.2000, where he remained under treatment from 20.01.2000 to 10.05.2000. The OP registered him vide registration no. 330 at serial no. 24. Even after 10.05.2000, he continued getting treatment from the said nursing home till 28.10.2000. It has been stated that the complainant paid Rs. 16,000/ - for his stay in the nursing home and a further sum of Rs. 44,000/ - was spent for medicines purchased from the market. The complainant alleged that due to negligence of the OP, he suffered 15% deformity in his leg and became handicapped, as is clear from the examination done by the Chief Medical Officer Etah on 05.12.2000. Because of his being handicapped, he suffered loss of income in his legal profession. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 08.12.2000 by registered post, but the OP did not give any reply. The consumer complaint was then filed, seeking directions to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with interest, in addition to the expenses incurred on his treatment.

(3.) The petitioner/OP filed a written statement to the complaint before the State Commission, in which he stated that the complainant first contacted him on 20.01.2000 for treatment for his right leg, which had been injured in some accident. At that time, there was a wound and swelling on the leg. The OP gave him treatment for taking care of the swelling and the wound and also advised him to contact again on 05.02.2000 for further treatment. There was no indoor facility available at the nursing home and hence, there was no question of admission or stay of the complainant at the said place. On 05.02.2000, the complainant came to the OP again when x -ray of his right leg was taken at the nursing home and it was found that both the bones of right leg from lower part were fractured. Since the swelling in the right leg had reduced by that time, the plaster was done as per medical requirement, after properly setting the fractured bones. The complainant was advised bed -rest and asked to contact again on 10.02.2000. However, the complainant came after a long gap on 07.04.2000, when the OP found that the plaster had already been removed from his leg on the advice of some other doctor. On 07.04.2000, x -ray of the right leg was again taken and it was found that there was callus formation in the leg, meaning thereby that the treatment given to him was correct. The OP stated that after 07.04.2000, the complainant never visited him for treatment. The OP further stated that the complainant had paid him a sum of Rs. 1,600/ - only for his total treatment which included consultation, x -ray and plaster of his right leg. The OP never advised the complainant to purchase medicines worth Rs. 44,000/ -. The OP maintained that the complainant was fully capable of doing normal work and was not at all handicapped and the said factor could be confirmed by suitable medical opinion. The complaint should therefore be dismissed, since the story made by the complainant was false, incorrect and misconceived.