DEEPAK RAJARAMJI MOURYA Vs. SANJEEV DEVIDAS CHOUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.2.2016 passed in First Appeal No. A/10/649 by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Nagpur (in short, 'the State Commission') whereby the appeal of the complainant was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 11.1.2004, the complainant, Deepak Rajaramji Mourya suffered injury to his left knee. He approached Dr. Sanjeev Devidas Choudhari on the same day, who gave initial treatment. The complainant visited again on 18.1.2004 and on 26.2.2004 for pain in left knee, therefore, OP advised MRI to rule out the cause of pain and internal injury, if any. The MRI was performed on 27.2.2004. The OP performed surgery on left knee on 3.3.2004 and removed middle meniscus from the knee. It was alleged that OP removed the meniscus by bare hands i.e. without any instrument. The OP did not give any local anaesthesia, performed the procedure negligently without any care and caution. The complainant was discharged on 15.3.2004 irrespective of persistent pain and locking of the knee. He approached OP again on 19.3.2004 but, OP abused the complainant and did not issue any discharge card, which was issued after six months i.e. on 17.9.2004 to escape from liability of negligence. Therefore, the complainant took the treatment from other doctors, also underwent series of MRI tests. On comparing the MRI reports, it was learnt that removal of meniscus by the OP was wrong and unjustifiable. Instead of putting the stitches with the help of Arthroscopy, he removed the meniscus, which was incomplete tear. Thus, alleging the negligence during the treatment, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur.

(3.) The OP resisted the complaint and submitted that the complaint was barred by limitation. The OP performed the operation with due care and caution. It was denied that the complainant suffered severe pain and locking of the knee. The complainant did not suffer permanent partial disability; but he did not follow the advice of OP, his condition got deteriorated therefore, due to his own negligence, he has to undergo second operation.