16-04-2015 - Learned Counsel for the O.P.- appellant (Doctor for short) assailed  the impugned judgement on various grounds and submitted that the complainant –respondent failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Doctor.

2. Admittedly, the complainant went to the Doctor at his clinic at Chakradharpur on 24.2.2014 for treatment of his tooth pain. He paid Rs. 100/- for consultation and Rs. 400/- for extraction of tooth. The complainant did not agree to pay Rs. 1500/- for root canal treatment (R.C.T. for short). During the extraction of tooth, some complication arose i.e. half tooth was broken and half remained and consequently the complainant suffered severe pain. The Doctor asked him that the remaining treatment could be performed at his Tatanagar Clinic or he could visit his Chakradharpur clinic on the next day.

3. It is not known why the Doctor took up the extraction of tooth, if the proper treatment was R.C.T. Only because the complainant was not in a position to pay the charges for R.C.T., it  was not expected of  him to take up extraction of tooth which even according to him was detrimental and he was afraid that serious complication might  occur in extraction of such tooth. Secondly, if he apprehended complication, he should have ensured whether that his clinic at Chakradharpur was equipped to cope up with such complication. Further it appears that before extraction of tooth, no X-ray was advised or seen by the Doctor. The Doctor has not produced any consent form. There is nothing to show that the complainant pressurized the Doctor for extraction of tooth. Moreover no patient will pressurize the Doctor, if the Doctor warns him of complications.

4. Thus, the medical negligence on the part of the Doctor is fully proved in this case by his own admission as noted in the impugned order. In such circumstances, it has been rightly observed by the learned District Forum that expert report was not required in this case.

It may be noted that the Doctor went to the extent of getting an F.I.R. lodged under SC/ST Act, after filing of the present complaint case, alleging misbehavour by the complainant with the lady nurse belonging to ST. Clearly this was a pressure tactics on the complainant to withdraw his complaint case. This was absolutely unbecoming of the Doctor.

5. The learned District Forum has granted a very low amount of compensation – Rs. 10,000/- and cost of ligation Rs. 1000/- besides reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs. 650/- against Doctor and directed him to pay Rs. 11,650/- only.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length and going through the materials placed before us, in our opinion, no grounds are made out for interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

This matter was heard by the bench consisting of the President and the Member Mr. Ajit Kumar.  After the order was dictated with his consent, Mr. Ajit Kumar had to rush to Bombay for treatment of cancer.  He informed that he may not be available for about a month.  Therefore this order is being pronounced and signed by the President,  Keeping in view the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 25.02.2013, passed in W.P. (C) No.30939 of 2010 (N) - P.K. Jose - vs - M. Aby & Ors.

    Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

                        Ranchi,

                        Dated:-16-04-2015