DR. VASUDEVA P. KAMATH Vs. VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant, Vishwanath had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the Petitioner Dr. Vasudeva P. Kamath.

(2.) Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the complainant's son having sustained injury in his fore-arm while playing cricket, was taken to the petitioner who after X-ray diagnosed this to be a case of fracture. In these circumstances, his fore-arm was plastered which was removed allegedly as per complainant on 28-2-01 and as per petitioner/opposite party on 19-2-01. It was the case of the complainant that the 'union' of a bones had not taken place and the boy was in severe pain and under those conditions he had been taken to another hospital where after X-ray, Dr. Baswaraj found that, union had not U taken place where upon he was operated on 22-3-2001 by dynamic compression of both radius and ulna. On 30-3-01, the sutures were Lu removed and POP cast applied on 4-4-2001 and discharged. When he again came to hospital on 21-5-2001, POP cast was removed and found that the fracture had healed. It was the case of the complainant before the District Forum that the petitioner/opposite party Dr. Kamath did not take proper care at the time of opening of the plaster and no further action was taken even when the union of bones had not taken place and the boy was complaining of pain etc. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, where the complaint was dismissed by the President of the District Forum, but by a separate majority order passed by the two Members, one of whom is an MD, LLB, held the petitioner medically negligent and awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% from the date of default till the date of payment, payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed. Hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) We heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.