Haryana

Sonipat

81/2012

MANISH S/O NARESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. DR. ATUL PATIL,2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

V.S. LATHER

13 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.81 of 2012

                                Instituted on:21.02.2012

                                Date of order:29.05.2015

 

Manish son of Naresh son of Bhim Singh, resident of H.No.3, Ward no.1, Jatwara, Sonepat minor through his father Naresh, being natural guardian and next friend.

 

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

1.Dr Atul Patil (Ortho) Orthopedic Surgeon, Patil Nursing Home, Adarsh Nagar, Sonepat at Present Shiva Hospital, Sonepat.

2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 204-R, Model Town, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Branch Manager, Sonepat.        

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. VS Lather Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Krishan Bhardwaj, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Surender Malik, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant has met with an incident of horse riding and receiving injuries in his left leg.  He got himself admitted in the hospital of respondent on 11.12.2010 where he was got operated for the fractured left leg, but it was wrongly operated upon and not joined the bones, whereas he has spent more-than Rs.10,000/- for the purchase of medicines  etc.  Thereafter, he went to Dua Hospital, Sonepat and General Hospital, Sonepat, but the doctors of the said hospitals showed their inability to give the treatment to the complainant.   The complainant sought the second opinion from Kailash Health Care Ltd. Delhi on 13.9.2011 where the doctor opined that the previous operation done by the respondent is not as per the correct medical standard and there was negligence on his part in operating the left leg of the complainant and an estimate of Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the complainant for further treatment and operation.  The complainant has become permanent disabled due to the negligence of the respondent and thus, he is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.9 lacs alongwith Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared and filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in his written statement has submitted that the complainant insisted on closed reduction and wanted to avoid open operative procedure and metal implants since the patient was very young.   The option of closed reduction and POP splintage was done under sedation.  Appropriate treatment was given for the healing of punctured wound and to guard against infection.  Active and passive physiotherapy was started and the family was trained for the same.  The patient was discharged with the advice regarding medicines, diet and physiotherapy.   As per records submitted by the complainant, the child was seen by Dr Dua of Dua Nursing Home, General Hospital Sonepat and Kailash Healthcare Ltd., Delhi. In view of a mild malunion, he was explained that this degree of malunion was acceptable as it is likely to improve as the bones grow with age but in case they insist, the only other option was open reduction and internal fixation(ORIF) with bone grafting.  They rightly explained the prognosis and discussed the possibilities of risk involved. The complainant has concealed the fact that the respondent no.1 had discussed with the patient’s family that he was not very much satisfied with the alignment of fragments by closed reduction and so gave them the option of either the operation of open reduction with internal fixation or another attempt of closed reduction under C-arm control.  The patient’s family insisted on the non-operative method.   After several months of discharge, one of the relatives of the complainant had approached the respondent no.1 to obtain a certificate to indicate the date of admission and discharge.  The respondent no.1 has denied the fact that the doctor of Kailash Healthcare Ltd. has opined that the previous operation done by the respondent no.1 was not as per correct medical standard and had negligence in operation or the complainant was wrongly operated upon by the respondent or the respondent no.1 has grossly negligent in providing sufficient medical service to the complainant or the complainant has become permanently disabled because of the alleged negligence on the part of the respondent no.1.  The complainant is not entitled to get any amount of compensation from the respondent no.1 as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has obtained a certificate of his admission in hospital of respondent no.1, but the story has been falsely cooked just to create confusion in the mind of this Forum.  The complainant was/is quite OK and completely cured.    The hospital of the respondent no.1 is well equipped and having all kind of modern facilities which were required for Ortho surgery.  The respondent no.1 has provided sufficient medical services to the complainant.  The respondent no.1 cannot be held liable in any manner because there is no negligence of any kind on the part of the respondent ono.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          In the present case, ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that there was negligence on the part of the respondent no.1 while treating the complainant as due to the same, the complainant has become permanently disabled.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 have submitted that there was no negligence of any kind on the part of the respondent no.1 because the complainant was treated as per medical standard and all the allegations of the complainant have been denied in toto.

          In the present case, the matter was referred to the Medical Superintendent, Pt. B.D. Sharma, PGIMS Rohtak with the request to constitute the medical board for examination of the complainant and on 16.1.2015, the report of Medical Board, PGIMS Rohtak was received which is reproduced below:-

          “The Board feels that conservative managing in a 4 years old child with POOP cast does not amount to negligence more so in the light of fact that doctor explained to the patient the prognosis regarding risk of infection and limb shortening”.

          In our view, the above said report of Medical Board is binding upon both the parties and this Forum is also unable to ignore the report of Medical Board.  So, taking into consideration the report of the Medical Board, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent doctor and thus, no directions of any kind can be given to the respondent doctor.  The present complaint has failed and thus, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:29.05.2015