RAJESH CHANDER Vs. KARAMDDEN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Dr. Rajesh Chander & anr. against the order dated 23.5.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.1368 of 2011.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Karamdeen Khan, respondent no.1/complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent no.1") filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), making the averments that he is a labourer and used to earn Rs.350/- per day by doing the labour. On 26.08.2010 at about 4.00 p.m., respondent no.1 met with an accident with the tractor and his right leg was fractured in the accident at village Cheema. He was brought to Civil Hospital, Barnala and was treated by appellant no.1. A sum of Rs.25/- was deposited by respondent no.1 at the time of admission, Rs.2/- for OPD slip and Rs.300/- for one bottle of blood. Appellant no.1 stitched the wound which was 5x4 cm size and also told that there is fracture of lower end of right femur bone. No other treatment was given nor any x-ray was done. Only the skin traction was given. Respondent no.1 did not feel well and there was severe pain in the said part of the body. Respondent no.1 told appellant no.1 time and again about the condition of the pain, but every time, appellant no.1 told that he will be fine soon with his treatment by the next morning. On 27.08.2010 in the morning, respondent no.1 noticed some dis-colouring in the lower part of his right leg and felt some decrease in sensation in the said part. Respondent no.1 explained the whole condition to appellant no.1 and appellant no.1 gave some treatment. Not satisfied with the attitude of appellant no.1, respondent no.1 complained to appellant no.3 and respondent no.2, but they again referred him to appellant no.1 and also advised for x-ray of respondent no.1, but the appellant no.1 instead of doing something for the betterment, started misbehaving with respondent no.1 on First Appeal No.1368 of 2011 3the ground that he has complained to his seniors and just marked the x-ray on the file, but no x-ray was actually got done of respondent no.1. Appellant no.1 kept on misbehaving and told respondent no.1 to go to somewhere else, as he has complained against him. Respondent no.1 requested to discharge him from the hospital so that he may approach some other doctor, but appellant no.1 neither discharged him nor gave proper treatment to respondent no.1. The condition of respondent no.1 deteriorated due to negligence of the appellants and respondent no.2, as the pain in the thigh was increasing along with increase in dis-colouring of the leg below knee. Seeing his condition, the wife of respondent no.1 and other relatives took him to C.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana for further treatment in the evening of 27.08.2010. On checking, the doctors of the C.M.C. & Hospital told respondent no.1 that there is an open fracture femur right with vascular injury in the right leg and advised the amputation of right lower limb above the knee of respondent no.1 and warned that otherwise, there will be danger to his life. It was also told that had the proper treatment been given to him in time, the leg could have been saved. It was also told that no treatment was given by appellant no.1 to avoid or manage the vascular injury in the right thigh due to which the amputation was imminent. Appellant no.1 did not diagnose the disease properly, nor followed the proper surgical procedure. On 30.08.2010, the amputation was done and respondent no.1 remained admitted from 27.08.2010 to 22.09.2010 in C.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana and spent Rs.3.00 lacs on the treatment.

(3.) Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer Complaint bearing No.49/2011 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala, (in short 'the District Forum'). The complaint was resisted by all the opposite parties. The District Form however vide, its order dated 8.8.2011 allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-