BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 188 of 2010
Date of Institution : 6.7.2010
Date of Decision : 2.3.2016
Ramesh Kumar s/o Sh.Ram Chand, r/o Shiv Chowk, Sirsa, tehsil and
distt.Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1.Dr.R.K.Jain, Jain Orthopedic Hospital, Malgodam Road, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, tehsil and distt.Sirsa.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sirsa through its Senior Divisional Manager, Sirsa vide Cover note No.807294 w.e.f. 21.8.2008 to 20.8.2009.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……… MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Manav Goyal, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainant is that on 25.12.2008, he met with an accident and received comminuted fracture of both bones right leg with fracture tibial condole with joint location right and was got admitted in the hospital of Op no.1, where he underwent an operation and remained indoor patient upto 7.1.2009. An amount of Rs.38100/- was charged by Op for conducting the operation and indoor charges. During the period of admission, it was declared that the operation will have to be conducted and the screws will be affixed to fix the fracture right leg and at the time of discharge although there was no improvement, but, it was declared that the complainant will have to remain in bed for another fortnight or so and everything would be O.K. Even after discharge, the complainant remained under treatment of Op upto 25.6.2009 and despite that long treatment, there was no improvement. The Op declared that everything is fine and normal and generally the time of six months is taken. After seven months of the injury and operation, the complainant went to City Diagnostic Centre for his x-ray of his own and Dr.Sanjeev Kaushal, Radiologist, who disclosed that fracture of right leg had not cured and there was gap between the fractured bones. Even the screw which was fixed by Op was lying broken at the site of fracture and both the bones are shattered into multiple fragments. At the time of operation the screw was broken by the Op and was left as it is. The doctor Op did not reveal this fact to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached Dr.Ashok Arora, Arora Orthopedic hospital, Hisar, who also disclosed that treatment has not been done according to medical norms. The screw was wrongly fixed by Dr.R.K.Jain on account of which it broken during the operation. On account of delay in proper treatment, the complainant has suffered a lot and has incurred permanent physical handicap and disablement. The complainant approached the opposite party for copy of record of treatment and compensation of Rs.10 lac, but he refused. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Opposite party no.1 in his reply has admitted the alleged history of some road side accident and treatment given by him. It is also admitted that the complainant underwent an operation on 25.12.2008 and remained admitted upto 7.1.2009 and a sum of Rs.38.100/- were charged as fee, room charges, nursing care etc. The patient was discharged from the hospital when he was having some improvement and quite comfortable. No assurance of fitness was given to the complainant in fortnight time. After discharge, the complainant was regularly being attended at his home by Op and by his hospital staff. All the dressings were being done at home of complainant. Nothing ever was being paid by the attendant for home visits and dressings etc. The complainant was again admitted on 24.4.2009 for external fixator removal and P.O.P. cast application and remained admitted in the hospital upto 28.4.2009. During this period also, not even a single penny was paid to Op for his operation and hospital stay. After conducting the operation, the complainant and his attendants were made aware of the fact that some portion of the screws has remained in side the bone and fracture in the middle of the right leg has not united yet, for which another operation may be required to be done. On the request of complainant and his attendants, the Op applied the plaster but explained in detail the need for fixation of the fracture by operation, for which they denied. Thus, all the facts about the severity of injury and its prognosis and about the methods of treatment and need for further surgery were discussed in detail to the complainant and his attendants. Nothing was concealed from the patient and also no unethical tactics were being adopted by Op in treating the complainant at any time during the entire course of his treatment. Allegations leveled against the Op are false and frivolous.
3. OP no.2 in its reply has also admitted the facts of admission of the complainant in the hospital of Op no.,1 regarding the fracture of both bones right leg; surgical operation in emergency and also payment of fee etc. However, it is pleaded that the operation was done by Op no.1 according to medical norms depending upon the type of fracture and its severity as the complainant was having compartment syndrome and diabetes. There was no negligence on the part of op no.1 while treating the complainant.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-discharge ticket of Arora hospital; Ex.C3-cash memo of Jain Orthopaedic hospital; Ex.C4-report of City diagnostic centre; ; Ex.C5-payment slip; Ex.C6-prescripion slip dt. 26.6.09 of Op no.1; Ex.C7-x-ray report of City Diagnostic Centre; Ex.C8 to Ex.C10-prescription slips; Ex.C11-patint’s bed head ticket; whereas, the Ops have tendered Ex.RW1/A-affidavit of Hansraj Kamboj, Sr.Divisional Manager of Op no.2; Ex.RW2/A-affidavit of op no.1 Dr.R.K.Jain; Ex.R1-insurance policy; Ex.R2, Ex.R7 and Ex.R10 -indoor ticket of op no.1; Ex.R3 and Ex.R9-consent certificate; Ex.R4 and Ex.R8-reports of Krishana Diagnostic lab; Ex.R11-insurance cover note.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The first main question to be decided by this Forum is whether there is any deficiency or negligence in treating the patient by the OP doctor or not? In this case it is admitted fact that complainant was treated by the Op doctor for comminuted fracture of both bones right leg with fracture tibial condole with joint location right and he charged Rs.38100/- from the complainant for this. As per version of the Op doctor, screws were fixed percutaneously to fix the intra articular tibial plateau fracture with closed reduction and external fixation of swelling all over the right lower limb that was causing compartment syndrome. As per version of the doctor he regularly attended the complainant at his home and all the dressings etc. have been given without charging even a single penny but there is no evidence on the record in this respect and contention of the Op doctor is not believable. The fact that complainant remained admitted in his hospital second time is also admitted but receiving of any charges is denied by the Op doctor which are not believable in the circumstances of the case. From the reading of Ex.C11 which is patient Bed Head ticket and history of his admission and treatment, it is clear that complainant admitted in Arora Orthopaedic hospital, Hisar after the period of six months from the date of fracture and got conduct ed the operation. As per the summary of Arora hospital at the time of his admission in Arora hospital bone of right leg of the patient was fractured from two places and bone has not been rejoined. In this case, opinion of expert doctors has also been called by this Forum through the Civil Surgeon, Fatehabad, who vide his letter no.1555 dt. 1.9.2010 submitted report of Board of doctors consisting Dr.N.K.Chakarwarty, Dy. Civil Surgeon, Dr.Sunil Chouhan (Ortho.) and Dr.Kulbhushan Garg (Ortho.). As per opinion of doctors, Op had followed the principles of Orthopedics in treating the patient but the patient was not informed properly that he may need second surgery also after removal of fixator. In all the records available with them patient was not informed about the broken screw and need for surgery again. Thereby patient was kept in dark by the treating doctor. Fact of broken screw is also clear from Radiologist report Ex.C7.
7. From all above discussions, it is clearly established on record that Op doctor treated the patient (complainant) in negligent manner and had not informed to him about the broken screw and need for further surgery. Thereby patient was kept in dark by the treating doctor which amounts to deficiency in service also. Accordingly, we held the Op doctor guilty for deficient and negligent services under the provisions of Section 2(1)(g) and 2(I)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.
8. Now, coming to quantum of compensation and reliefs to be given to the complainant, it is proved on record that complainant remained in bed for a period more than 1-1/2 years and spent lot of money on his treatment beside the pain and sufferings. He also suffered several losses like business etc. In all these circumstances, we are of the considered view that it will be justified if complainant is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs). We order accordingly. Beside this, complainant is awarded Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Amount of compensation alongwith litigation expenses will be paid by both the respondents jointly and severally within a period of 45 days, failing which amount of compensation will fetch interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 6.7.2010 till actual realization. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:2.3.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Dr.R.K.Jain
Present: Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Manav Goyal, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2
Quorum not complete. Now to come up on 1.3.2016 for the cause already fixed.
Dt.23.2.2016. Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa
Present: Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Manav Goyal, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 2.3.2016.
Dt.1.3.2016. Member. Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
