PER JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER The facts of the above mentioned case are these. The complainant/respondent, Bhanwar Lal was admitted in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur, petitioner No. 1, on 19.3.1998. He complained about pain and swelling in the right leg/hip for more than six months. He was examined by Dr. Shailendra Srivastava, petitioner No. 2. According to Dr. Shailendra Srivastava, the complainant was suffering from Pyogenic Septic hip with AVN (Avascular Necrosis head of femur). The X-ray revealed that the upper shaft of the femur bone was severely infected by chronic osteomyelitis. On 20.3.1998, the complainant was advised MRI scan of his Pelvis with hip joints to confirm presence of soft tissue involvement which were not visible in the X-ray. The MRI report substantiated the X-ray report and revealed chronic Osteomyelitis involving the Right Illiac Bone, Right Hip Joint and upper 1/3rd of the right Femur. The complainant was advised blood tests by petitioner No. 2 including tests for IGG and IGM for Tuberculosis and he got the tests done from an independent diagnostic centre. The blood tests revealed that the complainant tested Negative with Anti Mycobacterium Antibody IGM/IgG and the same were conducted outside the above said hospital. The histopathology report reveal that there was no evidence of tuberculosis on 22.4.1998. The complainant was discharged from Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital on 02.5.1998. 2. The complainant consulted Dr. S. C. Sharma of SMS Hospital, Jaipur on 9.12.1998 and after various investigations, X-rays and blood tests, the complainant was diagnosed as suffering from Osteo-tuberculosis and Pyogenic septic. Treatment was given by Dr. S. C. Sharma. The complainant recovered. The grievance of the complainant is that the improper treatment given by the Santokba Memorial Hospital, Jaipur resulted in his 40% disability. 3. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum where he claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.7,32,541/- from the petitioners. The District Forum allowed the complaint and a sum of Rs.57,542/- alongwith interest @9% per annum till the payment of the same from the date of that order was granted. Compensation in the sum of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.2,000/- litigation costs. 4. Both the parties filed separate appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order and held that apart from getting Rs.57,542/- for medicines, the complainant shall also be entitled to Rs. 3 lakh for compensation and mental agony and other expenses with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. Before the State Commission, it was argued that the petitioners had asserted that after recovery of hemoglobin of the complainant, surgery was conducted on 20.4.1998 for exploring the joint and also for biopsy. It was further submitted that on surgical exploration, there was pus in the joint cavity that was removed and sent for examination and bacterial culture, the head of femur in the joint was found to be necrosed (diseased and damaged) and covered by infected granulation tissue. This was excised and the pieces were sent for histopathological examination and diagnosis. It was also submitted that the capsule of the joint and synovium was thickened and a biopsy piece from the same was also sent for examination. As per biopsy, there was no evidence of tuberculosis; Chronic non-specific synovitis was found but no evidence of tuberculosis was seen. 5. Before the courts below, no document including the biopsy report was submitted. The case came up before us for hearing on 29.5.2012. Learned proxy counsel Ms. Filza Moonis wanted to produce biopsy report. Time was granted as prayed. However, it did not see the light of the day. The said crucial piece of evidence was withheld for the reasons best known to the petitioners. 6. Secondly, SMS hospital, Jaipur came to the conclusion that the complainant was suffering from Osteo-tuberculosis and not Pyogenic septic. Dr. S. C. Sharma of SMS hospital, Jaipur also opined that the complainant had suffered 40% disability due to Osterorthity tuberculosis on the right hip. However, the petitioners took a contrary stand. They contended that there was no evidence of tuberculosis as per biopsy report. In the absence of the biopsy report, the position does not begin of jell. Biopsy report was a crucial document. Its non-production has got deleterious effect. 7. It is also apparent that the respondent was admitted in the hospital at the age of 25 years. It also stands proved that he suffered 40% disability at the hands of the petitioners. It must have caused mental agony and loss in future prospects. The medical negligence is apparent on the record. The production of biopsy would have brought to us face to face with the factual position or reality. Its absence has pushed the case deeper in the soup. 8. The report of Dr. C.S. Sharma is significant. The affidavit of Dr. C.S. Sharma produced on the record runs as follows:- “I, Dr. C.S. Sharma son of Shri Hanuman Sharma aged about 50 years, Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedics S.M.S. Medical College Hospital Jaipur do here by take oath and state as under:- 1) That the applicant Bhanwar Lal S/O Rodu Ram aged about 30 years is known to me. He has been under my treatment for an ineffective arthritis of the Right Hip Joint Since 09.12.1998. 2) He has earlier been treated in the S.D.M.H. Jaipur as a payogenic/ Septic arthritis of the Right Hip. I, however, different in the diagnosis and treated him with anti-tubercular drugs. He was responded dramatically to the treatment and the disease has become quiescent following my treatment. I also issued certificate in this regard on 29.01.2001 which is marked as Exi. 51.” 9. There is no evidence in rebuttal. 10. We find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is without merits and the same is, therefore, dismissed. | 
