SATYAPAL JAIN Vs. MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 8. 1. 2007 passed in the CCA No. 145/2004 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sagar (hereinafter Forum) whereby the appellant has been held to be partly responsible for negligence and deficiency in the treatment of the respondent and directed to pay to the respondent No. 1 a total sum of Rs. 7,000 as damages, reimbursement of expenditure on additional treatment and cost.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the complainant (respondent No. 1 here) had approached the opposite party (appellant here) for treatment of fracture of his left hand on 26. 12. 2003 who fixed the bone and plastered it. After 5 weeks when the plaster was cut on 1. 2. 2004, the complainant had pain in his hand which persisted beyond 15 days and as a result he had to go to Nurajahan Siraj Ahmed Memorial Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Jabalpur, where his ailment was diagnosed as malunited fracture L/e radius ellna and he had to undergo another operation. This cost him about Rs. 25,000 besides suffering pain for another 45 days. Charging the opposite party with negligence during earlier treatment, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking damages and additional expenditure he had to incur in his treatment at Jabalpur, which was decided as mentioned above.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the complainant had earlier taken treatment in District Hospital, Sagar about 10 days back and came to the appellant on 26. 12. 2003 complaining that the plaster done by the District Hospital is too tight and is causing pain. Since he brought with him the X-ray report the appellant cut the plaster, which was too tight, and after fixing the bone replastered it. He asked the complainant to come back with fresh x-ray report within a week. Since he did not come back with the x-ray and do the exercise advised by the appellant, the latter cannot be charged with any negligence or deficiency in service. Besides he contended that despite best care non-union or mal-union at times takes place and the appellant cannot be held responsible for the same.