SRI MOHAN Vs. SUKHPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the complainant Mr. Sukhpal Singh, sustained a fracture of leg femur on 17. 10. 1999, for which he approached the petitioner Dr. Shri Mohan of Paras Nursing Home for treatment. The complainant/respondent remained hospitalised from 17. 10. 1999 to 29. 10. 1999. When he was relieved, with advice to be kept under traction at the residence for 12 weeks. The petitioner for this purpose went to the residence of the complainant and traction was given. When after completion of the period of traction, the complainant came to the nursing home, x-ray was taken and he was told that the bones have united properly. He was advised to do some exercises. The complainant remained under treatment of petitioner till 10. 4. 2000 when he felt that the leg has been shortened and there is constant pain. Despite assurances of the petitioner to the contrary, when pain was not going, the complainant approached another specialist namely, Dr. Arvind Sharan on 21. 4. 2000. It was for the first time that Dr. Sharan observed that his leg has shortened by one inch and leg is united with wrong angle. With this report when the complainant approached the petitioner, Doctor again on 29. 4. 2000, the petitioner told him that leg is shortened by 1/2 inch, he will have to use a shoe of high heel. Not being satisfied, the complainant consulted Dr. Himanshu and Dr. U. C. Jain of Saharanpur on 7. 8. 2000 and again Dr. S. B. Gupta of Meerut, who told him that it is a case of 'mal-united' of bones on account of improper treatment given by petitioner before us. It is in these circumstances, that a complaint was filed before the District Forum, alleging medical negligence who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation, Rs. 15,000 for mental and physical agony and Rs. 5,000 as costs within a period of one month failing which it was to carry interest @ 12% p. a. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Basic facts are not in dispute, hence are not being reproduced. The only plea taken before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the lower Fora were wrong in arriving at the conclusion that surgery should have been done. It is the case of the petitioner that when there were two alternatives, i. e. , surgery or traction and if the petitioner adopted traction as the mode of the treatment, especially, in view of the fact, that the complainant had refused surgery, then he cannot be faulted for not doing surgery on the complainant. It was also his case that the bone had united at the right place but it bent subsequently as the respondent failed to take necessary precautions as advised by the petitioner. On the other hand learned Counsel for the complainant supported the order passed by the District Forum and State Commission.