RAMPHAL Vs. VIJAY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Justice M. R. Agnihotri, President - Complainant Ram Phal has come up in appeal against the order dated 2nd August, 1996 passed by learned District Forum, Karnal, whereby his complaint alleging deficiency in service against Dr. Vijay Gupta of City Orthopaedic Hospital Karnal in rendering medical service to the complainant has been dismissed.

(2.) According to the complainant, he got his daughter Suman aged 11 years admitted in the Hospital of the respondent in April, 1996 for being operated upon due to fracture of right elbow joint, but as alleged by the complainant the condition of the patient did not improve, she was again taken to the same Hospital on 6th July, 1996 when she was operated upon for the second time. But this time also there was no improvement in the condition of the patient. Feeling aggrieved against that, the complainant claimed refund of the fee paid by him to the Doctor alongwith compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him. The learned District Forum finding no merit in the complaint, dismissed the same as neither any negligence on the part of the Doctor nor any deficiency in service could be made out from the allegations made in the complaint.

(3.) In the appeal before us, learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant applied for placing the medical reports of the patient on record by way of additional documents. In the interest of justice, the appellant was permitted to place those documents on record. In reply Dr. Vijay Gupta has also filed his written submissions. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record we do not find any merit in the appeal. Out of the two prescription slips only first one dated 7th June, 1995 related to City Orthopaedic Hospital and X- ray Centre of Dr. Vijay Gupta-respondent, whereas the second one dated 11th June, 1996 related to Bhalla Nursing Home of Gharaunda. In the first prescription slip after medical checkup it is recorded that it was a case of septic elbow, which was badly infected, whereas in the second one relating to Bhalla Nursing Home report stated that x-ray shows fracture of lower end of humerus and cyst formation of the right elbow joint, besides this no material whatsoever on record nor has any document been referred to produce or relied upon by the complainant-appellant. On the other hand, we find that Dr. Vijay Gupta is M. B. B. S M. S. H. C. M. S-I (Ex.) S. M. O. Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon from Medical College, Rohtak, who has served the Haryana Health Department for about 13 years and has by now been in private practice as Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon for more than 14 years. He is well qualified, trained and specialist as Orthopaedic Surgeon. There being no contrary report or opinion of any other Orthopaedic Specialist on record which reflect adversely on the diagnosis or the treatment made by Dr. Vijay Gupta. Moreover in his written submission it has been stated by Dr. Gupta that the patient did not have any fracture at any stage nor did he ever treated or operated for fracture. When the patient visited his clinic on 6th April, 1996 in fact the septic elbow and toxaemia of about 2 months old injury to the right elbow when she had manipulations tight bandage and splint from some local quacks in the line. However, when the patient came for the second time on 7th June, 1996 the condition of the patient as noticed on medical check-up was duly recorded in the prescription slip, but when the entire condition of the patient was explained to the attendants, they left the Hospital alongwith the hospital record in the night on 19th July, 1996 without even paying the medicines bill to the Chemist and dues of the tea stall. After going through the material on record as discussed above, we are of the considered view that no deficiency in service whatsoever much less any negligence in rendering medical service has been established on the record against Dr. Vijay Gupta, who is a qualified and experienced Orthopaedic Surgeon of Karnal. Consequently, there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum, which is a detailed and well-reasoned one and deserves to be upheld. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.