Dtd.11.06.2024                                            A/238/2016

O R D E R

             BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by Complainant/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.20.10.2015 passed in CC/174/2012 on the file of Hasana District Forum. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, and appeal papers.  Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be whether the impugned order dtd.20.10.2015 passed in CC/174/2012 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

3. It is not in dispute that the Complainant was admitted to OP.2 hospital on 03.05.2004 and   discharged on 25.05.2004. He alleged against OP.1 that during August 2011, when he was visited with Dr.Kiran, orthopaedic surgeon practicing in Hassan told, the doctor who has treated him has left the piece of the drill bit at the right femur and as a result  complainant is getting continued pain and swelling. According to OP.1 it is not uncommon that a bit may break and may remain in the bone, no effect would caused to the body, since removal of bit, screws and plates are optional and the Complainant is normal now.
4.  The District Forum has found, Complainant was admitted at Tejasvini Hospital, Mangaluru, wherein Dr.Shantharam Shetty, Orthopaedician removed the impact drill bit from the right femur and the District Forum during the course of enquiry believed the evidence of Dr.Shantharam Shetty, who has examined as CW2 and in appreciation of materials placed on record by the parties to the complaint found Complainant is entitle to get a sum of Rs.23,521/- towards the cost for the removal of the drill bit from the right femur bone of the Complainant and awarded Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost and held liability of OP.2 & 1 is that of the master and service relationship as per the principles/ratio laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in CC/221/2000(NC) dtd.05.01.2015 and allowed the complaint in part and awarded interest at 9% p.a from the date of order till the date of realisation which in our view does not call for any interference to enhance the compensation as prayed in this appeal.  Hence proceed to dismiss the appeal with no order as to cost.

5. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

   Lady Member                                Judicial Member               

*NS*