SARANGAPANI Vs. BONE AND JOINT CLINIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -IN this case, 48-years old complainant who is a diabetic suffered a fracture of the neck of the femur bone. The respondent Dr. Ravi Subramanian conducted a surgery on 10. 10. 1997 by implanting screws and then discharging after a few days stay in the hospital. It is the case of the complainant that though a sum of Rs. 45,000 was paid, there was no improvement in his condition and he suffered further complications which made him immovable and unable to do any work due to intolerable pain. Hence he consulted the doctor on 22. 6. 1998 who suggested another corrective surgery which was performed on 4. 8. 2000. It is alleged by the complainant that he was unable to walk and which resulted in immobility.

(2.) THEREFORE, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 96,810 towards surgery with compensation of Rs. 2. 00 lakh for physical and mental agony and Rs. 2. 00 lakh for medical expenses with cost. This was contested by the respondent doctor that surgery was successful and screws were placed properly to enable the natural union of the broken leg. The complainant displayed non-cooperation and found not strictly following the advice of the respondent doctor, not to walk or in any way place weight on the operated leg. Hence x-ray revealed that despite the fixation of the screws the bone failed to unite. The various factors can contribute to the non-union of the fractured neck of the femur including the age of the patient, his general condition and there reduced vascularity of the area in addition to his reluctance to follow the advice. Hence there was no choice but to remove the broken leg and to replace it with an artificial joint. The second surgery was performed on 4. 8. 2000 successfully.

(3.) THE District Forum after hearing the parties directed to refund Rs. 80,000 towards surgeries with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 along with cost of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondents filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission observed that "the District Forum ought to have seen that the non-union of the fractured neck of the femur was due to age of the patient, his general condition and the reduced vascularity of the area. This coupled with his reluctance to follow the advice of the opposite parties resulted in the non-union necessitating the second surgery. Dr. Sivamurugan, performed the second surgery to replace the joint with the imported artificial joint. The District Forum had no jurisdiction to interpret or substitute the decision arrived at by the opposite parties pre or post surgery. The second surgery was not performed to correct the mistake made in the first surgery. It was done in order to replace the joint on account of the non-union of the bone and by the performance of the second surgery, it could not be assumed that the first surgery was defective. The second surgery was done three years after the first and it was not correcting the mistakes made in the first surgery".