LAWS(NCD)-2007-2-36

UPASANA HOSPITAL Vs. S FAROOK

Decided On February 23, 2007
Upasana Hospital Appellant
V/S
S Farook Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS were the opposite parties before the State Commission, where the respondent filed a complaint alleging a case of medical negligence on the part of the Appellants.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had a congenital deformity which resulted in slight shortage of the length of his left leg. After reading an article in local vernacular Bi -weekly, the complainant approached the first appellant for his treatment by using ˜Ilizarov surgery. The first appellant directed the complainant to the second appellant. Surgery was done which was said to be successful. It was the case of the complainant that the limping has not been cured and other ailments like oozing of blood and pain has been caused due to the negligence and want of expertise of the opposite parties in conducting the ilizarov surgery. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, while holding that there was no fault with the surgery, yet held the appellants medically negligent on account of ˜ostomyelitis caused to the complainant, for which they relied upon the report of the Kerette Medical Centre (P) Ltd., as a result of which the Appellants were directed to pay a compensation of Rs.l,00,000 along with refund of Rs.38,957.43 ps being the amount spent by him along with cost of Rs. 1,500. Aggrieved by this order, opposite parties -appellants have filed appeal before us.

(3.) WE heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties at some length and also perused the material on record. Since, the complainant has not filed any appeal, it will be presumed that he was satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission which held the Appellants medically negligent on account of one point; i.e., causing ˜ostomyelitis due to post -operative services rendered by the opposite parties. In view of this, the only point which needs to be pressed is whether the appellants were negligent in rendering post -operative services?