BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 82 of 2015
Date of Institution: 05.02.2015
Date of Decision: 17.06.2016
Kulwant Singh son of Karnail Singh, resident of village: Rajasansi, Ward No.8, main Bazaar, Purana Dak Khana, Near Baba Deep Singh School, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- Dr.Jatinder Singh Punnu, MBBS, M.D.Medicine, Janta Hospital, Opp.Central Jail, Amritsar.
- M.D.Medicine, Janta Hospital, Opposite Central Jail, Amritsar through its authorized signatory/ partner/ proprietor/ any other Principal Officer thereof.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Divisional Office No.1, Dwarka Deesh Complex, Queen’s Road, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.M.S.Dhalla, Advocate
For Opposite Parties No.1 and 2: Sh. Sanjit Singh, Advocate
For Opposite Party No.3: Sh.Sandeep Khanna, Advocate.
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Kulwant Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he is a consumer of Opposite Parties as per section 2(i) of the Consumer Protection Act as he has availed the services of Opposite Parties. The complainant met with an accident due to which his left bone of thigh stood broken and the complainant was immediately got admitted with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for medical treatment on 7.10.2011. Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that they have to insert one rod in his left thigh and the treatment expenses for inserting the said rod etc. are about Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant and his family members at that time requested Opposite Parties that they are poor persons and having no sufficient source of income and they are not in a position to incur such expenses. The complainant also requested the Opposite Parties that he is having one insurance card worth Rs.30,000/- and on that, the Opposite Parties told the complainant that they will get the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the insurance company, but the complainant and his family members have to pay remaining amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. Subsequently, in order to arrange the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- the family members of complainant sold their property and paid to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and they medically treated the complainant and advised the complainant for complete bed rest for 6 months and gave medicines for six months and gave instructions to the complainant to move here and there by using walker. Even after the expiry of 6 months period, the complainant had been feeling much pain in his left thigh and as such, the complainant approached Opposite Parties and told about this and on that, the Opposite Parties advised the complainant to take medicine regularly and this will be cured soon. Since there were regular much pain in the left thigh of the complainant and as such, the complainant got done x-ray of his left thigh and found that instead of inserting rod in the left thigh, Opposite Parties had inserted plate on his left thigh and even from the perusal of x-ray, it was found that even the plate has been bent/ tapered on one side. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Parties and showed them the x-ray report, but the Opposite Parties instead of listening the complainant started misbehaving the complainant and abused him badly and forcibly turned him out of the hospital and threatened to involve the complainant in false criminal case and to lodge him in jail. The Opposite Parties refused to re-operate the left thigh of the complainant and to return his amount. Thereafter, the complainant moved a written complaint to Civil Surgeon, Health Department, Amritsar on 22.11.2013. Ld.Authority constituted a committee of three doctors and called the complainant and they had mentioned in their report in order to save Opposite Party No.1 that the treatment given is OK, but instead of inserting rod, the Opposite Party has inserted plate and the said plate has been tapered/ bent due to heavy weight of the complainant due to which the complainant is suffering pain. The procedure adopted by Opposite Party for the treatment of the complainant is not acceptable to medical profession and the condition of the complainant deteriorated due to not taking proper post operative care due to which the plate has been bend/ tapered. The act and conduct of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 by inserting plate instead of rod as per assurance given to the complainant while taking money is totally illegal, unwarranted, unsustainable in the eyes of law. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint.
a) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs which the complainant and his family members have spent for the treatment of patient due to medical negligence of the Opposite Parties.
b) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.3 lacs for causing mental harassment, agony, inconvenience to the complainant and his family members.
c) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards litigation expenses.
d) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled may also be granted in his favour.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement while Opposite Party No.3 filed separate written statement.
3. In their joint written statement, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ of the Consumer Protection Act; that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under the law against the replying Opposite Parties. Since no specific allegation has been levelled in the complaint against replying Opposite Parties. The complainant is not e4ntitled to any relief against replying Opposite Parties. There has been no medical negligence, deficiency in service or lack of professional ethics by replying Opposite Parties instead the best possible treatment with due care was provided to the patient in this case; that the present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of this Forum as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. Various material facts have been concealed and distorted version of facts have been deliberately presented in or to pressurize and harass the replying Opposite Parties. The complainant has concealed material medical facts relating to the patient’s medical condition. This is a deliberate attempt to conceal vital information. Hence, the complainant has not approached this Forum with clan hands and also presented a twisted and coloured story which have no legal value and as such, not entitled for any relief as principles of law and justice are well settled that the person approaching for justice should come with clean hands. The process of “Consumer Forum’ cannot become a tool at the hands of unscrupulous persons who file complaint merely with a view to extract money in the garb of compensation. The mere oral and bald statement of the complainant that there was negligence or deficiency on the part of the replying Opposite Parties during the course of treatment of the patient in question, will not make replying Opposite Parties negligent in this regard. It is a settled law as well as requirement of equity that one who alleges must prove. The complainant cannot make this Forum to reach conclusion their way on the basis of distorted facts. Since the complainant does not have any proof regarding the negligence of the replying Opposite Parties while treating the patient during relevant times, nor any specific allegation have been levelled against the replying Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties have not committed any wrong or negligence or deficiency in service while treating the said patient during relevant times; that the present complaint is a fit case where this Forum shall take stringent action against the complainant as envisaged under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; that the present complaint is in fact filed, at the behest of certain vested interest, the complainant has filed the present complaint out of greed and lust for money and on account of the fact that certain cases have gone adverse to the medical professionals and that this complaint is alleged to be likely to meet the same fate; that the complaint has not been properly verified. On this score, the present complaint fails; that even as per the allegations levelled by the complainant in the complaint qua replying Opposite Parties, no cause of action accrued to the complainant against replying Opposite Parties to file the present complaint. Mere absence of fruitful results or not succeeding in treatment gives no cause of action against the treating doctor or hospital. To make out a case, there must exist any deficiency in service or any other ground as per provisions of section 1© of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and for this reason, this complaint is liable to be dismissed; that the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint in what way, the replying Opposite Parties were negligent while treating the complainant during relevant times and how and what replying Opposite Parties were supposed to do in that regard. Thus the complainant on vague allegations deserves to be dismissed; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. Replying Opposite Parties have been unnecessarily made party in the present complaint. The replying Opposite Parties further state that this complaint deals with a complicated matter of both facts and law. This matter requires adducing plenty of evidence and also requires examination and cross- examination of plenty of witnesses. Consumer Commissions/ Foras have been directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to adjudicate only those cases where negligence is writ large on the face of the case. This case does not fall into this category and therefore, it would be improper for a summary trial Commission/ Forum to hear and decide this case. The complicated issues in the present complaint require correct, precise and elaborate medical, factual and technical evidence. Opposite Parties further submit that the Consumer Protection Act does not envisage a ‘full-dress trial’, but on the contrary only a speedy and summary trial. This complaint also involves a large number of parties and is concerning/ relating to complex and complicated relationships. The complaint cannot be tried and decided summarily in a time bound manner as envisaged under the Act. The complaint hence out to be dismissed with costs. It is admitted that the patient was admitted to Opposite Party No.2 hospital on 7.10.2011 at 10.15 PM. As a matter or record the first history is recorded as stated by the patient s stated by him. He had fallen while riding on a motor bike and sustained injury to his left leg about 304 days prior to admission in the hospital of replying Opposite Party No.2. As per history given he was admitted in Civil Hospital, Amritsar and was shifted to this hospital subsequently. As per information provided to the answering Opposite Party, it was stated that there was no complaint or report to police. The patient was a case of OBESITY ++, and was also a known case of hypertension. On investigation it was found to be a case of fracture shaft femur left side with diabetes mellitus. After all examinations when it was found that the patient was having a fracture of shaft femur on 8.10.2011 at 10.10 AM, the patient was examined by Dr.Rupali Sehgal MD Anaesthesia as part of the pre-anaesthesia check up. The surgery was deferred because of the observations of Dr.Sehgal. She recorded that “In light of the fact that the patient is having an infected wound on the right ankle and the fact that patient is having evidence of ACC. HT and considering the fact that the patient is grossly obese, surgery has been deferred for 96 hours so that the infection subsidies and the blood pressure stabilizes on medicines. Subsequently patient to be seen on 11.10.2011 for medical fitness of surgery.” The patient was regularly monitored and medically managed as documented in the hospital records. The patient was again evaluated on 11.10.2011 at 10.15 AM and the surgery was fixed at 4.00 PM. The operating notes have been given by the operating surgeon which are also documented in the hospital file. The fixation of the fracture femur left side was done with broad DCP and screws. As documented in the OT notes and also on the discharge card of the patient which is with the patient moreover the procedure was well explained to the patient before surgery. The patient was managed medically after surgery and on proper evaluation of the patient on 15.10.2011 the patient was found fit for discharge and was discharged accordingly. The special remarks not to put weight till medically advised was explained to the patient; the same were documented on the discharge card both in English and in Punjabi and it was also explained to the patient. This was very essential as the patient was Obese++. It is further submitted that not a single penny was paid by the patient to the replying Opposite Parties. The patient was covered under a medical insurance policy titled Rasthria Swasthia Bima Yojana, which was done by the insurance company IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited. The insurance company settled the bill of the patient at Rs.18,000/- which was the only amount paid and not a single penny was charged from or paid by the patient. Moreover, femoral shaft fractures in young people are frequently due to some type of high energy collision. The most common cause of femoral shaft fracture is a motor vehicle or motor cycle class. Being hit by a car as a pedestrian is another common cause, as are falls from heights and gunshot wounds. A lower force incident, such as a fall from standing, may cause a femoral shaft fracture in an older person who has weaker bones. There are non surgical and surgical treatments for treating femoral shaft fractures. It is unusual for the femur shaft fractures to be treated without surgery. Very young children are sometimes treated with a cast. Intramedullary nailing and plates and screws are the methods generally used world over for femoral shaft fracture. The purpose is to keep the broken bones as aligned as possible and to maintain the length of the leg while opting for surgical plates and screws. During this operation, the bone fragments are first repositioned (reduced) into their normal alignment. They are held together with special screws and metal plates attached to the outer surface of the bone. It is well documented that it was a case of fracture of shaft femur and the same could be treated by plate. This is a commonly practised method of treating fracture femur. The patient may not be able to put weight on leg until the fracture has started to heal. It is very important to follow the doctor’s instructions carefully. On starting walking one also needs crutches or a walker for support. The OT notes clearly indicate that the plate was inserted and even on the discharge card which is with the patient it is written “fixation of # femur done with DCP & Screws.” The patient was later called for follow up on 20.10.2011 at 3 PM and for removal of stitches on 25.10.2011. In fact the patient was advised not to put on weight till medically advised as has been even written on the discharge card. These precautions were necessary more particularly because the patient was Obese++. Strict instructions to avoid weight bearing were given to the patient in writing till the fracture would unite and a minimum period of six months from date of discharge was the period of zero weight bearing. The patient was very obese. The patient did not follow the instructions and did not even report for regular follow ups and it was only after causing damage to the plate by pre maturely weight bearing, he reported to the OPD with a bend. Thereafter the patient never reported to the hospital of replying Opposite Parties. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In its written statement, Opposite Party No.3 took certain preliminary objections that the complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as such the complainant is not entitled to file the present complaint; that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have violated the basic terms and conditions of the policy in question and hence no liability can be fastened against Opposite Party No.3 in the present case. As per the condition No.8.1 of the policy in question “the insured shall give written notice to the company as soon as reasonably practicable of any claims made against the insured (or any specific event or circumstances that may given rise to a claim being made against the insured) and which forms the subject of indemnity under this policy and shall give all such information as the company may require. Every claim, writ, summons or process and all documents relating to the event shall be forwarded to the company immediately they are received by the insured.” Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 neither intimated Opposite Party No.3 regarding any claim filed by the complainant, nor intimated Opposite Party No.3 immediately when the present complaint was filed by the complainant before this Forum. Moreover, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 even failed to furnish any documents immediately to Opposite Party No.3 pertaining to the claim in question, after such claim was preferred against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Hence, in the light of condition No. 8.1 of the policy in question as explained above, the present claim is not payable since Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have miserably failed to comply with the said condition; that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering Opposite Party since the present claim was never lodged with Opposite Party No.3 nor was the dispute in question intimated to Opposite Party No.3 at any point of time; that the complaint filed by the complainant is otherwise bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and cause of action; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has tried to conceal the material facts; that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 having violated the basic terms and conditions of the policy in question, are estopped by their own act and conduct from claiming any indemnity from Opposite Party No.3 in the present case; that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant in collusion with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2; that the present complaint is not maintainable being based on a false and concocted version of the complainant altogether. The complainant is guilty of misleading this Forum by furnishing false and incorrect information. As such, the present complaint is not legally maintainable; that the present complaint involves complicated questions of fats and law and regarding liability of Opposite Party which cannot be disposed of in a summary manner. On merits, the facts mentioned have been denied and a prayer for the dismissal of the complaint against answering Opposite Party is made.
5. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of prescription slip Ex.C1, copy of discharge card Ex.C2, copy of schedule caste certificate Ex.C3, affidavit of Hardev Singh Ex.CW2/A and closed his evidence.
5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Dr.Jitender Singh Pannu Ex.OP1,2/1, affidavit of Dr.Rajinder Rajan Ex.OP1,2/2, affidavit of Dr.Jitendar Singh Pannu Ex.OP1,2/3, copy of treatment record consisting of 27 pages Ex.OP1,2/4, copy of report of expert medical committee dated 31.12.2013 Ex.OP1,2/5 and closed the evidence. Similarly, Opposite Party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Gurdeep Singh, Divisional Manager Ex.OP3/1, copy of policy terms and conditions Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and besides going through the written synopsis of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. We have also carefully gone through the evidence on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant is a ‘consumer’ of Opposite Parties who met with an accident due to which his left bone of thigh broken and he was immediately got admitted with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for medical treatment on 7.10.2011. Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that they have to insert one rod in the left thigh of the complainant and the treatment expenses for inserting the said rod etc. are about Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant at that time requested the Opposite Parties that they are poor person having no sufficient source of income and they are not in a position to incur such a huge expenditure. At that time, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties that he is having one insurance card worth Rs.30,000/- and on that the Opposite Parties told the complainant that they will get the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the insurance company, but the complainant will have to pay remaining amount of Rs.1,20,000/- which were paid by the complainant. The Opposite Parties medically treated the complainant and advised the complainant for complete bed rest for 6 months and gave medicines for six months and also gave instructions to move here and there with the help of walker. Even after the expiry of 6 months period, the complainant kept on feeling much pain in his left thigh and as such, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties and told about this and on that the Opposite Parties advised the complainant to take medicine regularly and pain will be cured soon. Since there was regular severe pain in the left thigh of the complainant, as such, the complainant got x-ray of his left thigh conducted and found that instead of inserting rod in the left thigh, the Opposite Parties had inserted plate. From the perusal of x-ray, it was found that even the plate has been bent/ tapered on one side. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties and showed them x-ray report, but the Opposite Parties instead of listening to the complainant started misbehaving with the complainant and abused him badly and forcibly turned him out of the hospital. Thereafter, the complainant moved a written complaint to the Civil Surgeon, Health Department, Amritsar on 22.11.2013 copy whereof is OP1,2/5. Civil Surgeon, Amritsar constituted a committee of three doctors and they called the complainant and said committee made a mention in their report, in order to save Opposite Party No.1, that the treatment given is OK. But instead of inserting rod, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have inserted plate and said plate has been tapered/ bent due to heavy weight of the complainant due to which the complainant is suffering pain. The procedure adopted by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the treatment of the complainant is not acceptable to medical profession and the condition of the complainant got deteriorated due to non taking of proper post-operative care due to which the plate has been bent/ tapered. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not take reasonable care to treat the patient properly. Number of times, the complainant and his family members complained the same to the doctor, but the requests fell on the deaf ears of the hospital authorities. Resultantly, due to wrong treatment and without reasonable care for handling the patient for treatment, the condition of the patient started deteriorating day by day and presently the complainant is having severe pain in his left thigh. The complainant is a poor person and is not in a position to get himself re-operated. The act and conduct of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 by inserting plate instead of rod, is totally illegal, unwarranted and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance has been placed on Associate Builders Vs.Delhi Development Authority, 2009 (4) SCC (J) page 16 in which it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that “we, therefore, direct that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer For a (Whether District, State or National) or by the Criminal Court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made the Consumer Forum or the Criminal Court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialised in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the doctor/ hospital concerned.” Ld.counsel for the complainant further contended that the complainant and his family members have spent more than Rs.2 lacs on the treatment of the complainant and still more surgeries are required to be conducted on the patient. At present the patient is suffering severe pain in his left thigh and is unable to move properly or walk even. The complainant is unable to earn livelihood for himself and his family members. Due to wrong treatment provided to the complainant, the complainant and his family members are facing starvation. All this happened due to medical negligence on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Since the complainant and his family members suffered mental harassment, agony and inconvenience at the hands of the Opposite Parties, therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs besides the amount of Rs.2 lacs which the complainant and his family members have spent for the treatment of complainant.
8. However, from the appreciations of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant was treated for fracture of shaft femur at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital. The surgery was to be conducted on account of left femur injury and on 8.10.2011 the patient was examined by Dr.Rupali Sehgal MD Anaesthesia who had observed as under:-
“In light of the fact that the patient is having an infected wound on the right ankle and the fact that the patient is having evidence of ACC. HT and considering the fact that the patient is grossly obese, surgery has been deferred for 96 hours so that the infection subsides and the blood pressure stabilizes on medicines. Subsequently patient to be seen on 11.10.2011 for medical fitness of surgery.”
The patient was regularly monitored and medically managed as documented in the hospital records. The patient was again evaluated on 11.10.2011 at 10.15 AM and the surgery was fixed at 4.00 PM. The operating notes have been given by the operating surgeon which are also documented in the hospital file. The fixation of the fracture femur left side was done with broad DCP and screws. As documented in the OT notes and also on the discharge card of the patient which is Ex.C2. The patient was managed medically after surgery and on proper evaluation of the patient on 15.10.2011 the patient was found fit for discharge and was discharged accordingly. The special remarks “not to put weight till medically advised” was explained to the patient and the same were documented in the discharge card both in English and Punjabi and were also explained to the patient. This was very essential as the patient was Obese++. There are non surgical and surgical treatments for treating femoral shaft fractures. It is unusual for the femur shaft fractures to be treated without surgery. Very young children are sometimes treated with a cast. Intramedullary nailing and plates and screws are the methods generally used world over for femoral shaft fracture. The purpose is to keep the broken bones as aligned as possible and to maintain the length of the leg. This is a commonly practised method of treating fracture femur. The patient may not be able to put weight on leg until the fracture has started to heal. It is very important to follow the doctor’s instructions carefully. On starting walking one also needs crutches or a walker for support. In this case, these precautions were not followed by the patient within a minimum period of 6 months from the date of discharge as he was advised of zero weight bearing on the left leg. So much so, the patient did not even report for regular follow ups and it was only after causing damage to the plate by putting weight prematurly, he reported to the OPD with a bent. Thereafter, the patient never reported to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The complainant has not furnished the report of Expert Medical Committee which was appointed on the complaint filed by the complainant before Civil Surgeon, Health Department, Amritsar, after availing so many opportunities. The complainant has tendered only a documents on the file. Non production of the report of the Expert Medical Committee constituted by Civil Surgeon, Health Department, Amritsar amounts to withholding of the best evidence from court scrutiny. It is settled that he who comes to seek equity must come with clean hands. For proving medical negligence, mere deficiency in service can not be held to be a medical negligence. The complainant has to prove the negligence beyond reasonable doubt which has not been done in the instant case. In C.P.Sreekumar (Dr) MS Ortho Vs. Ramanujan, 2009 (7) SC 130, it has been held that bald statement of the complainant cannot be accepted to reach conclusion that the doctor lacked expertise. It is observed that too much suspicion about the negligence of the attending doctors and frequent interference by courts could be a dangerous proposition as it would present doctors from taking decision which could result in complications and in such a situation the patient will be the ultimate sufferer. It is well settled law that in the case of medical negligence, initial burden to prove medical negligence lies on the complainant. Mere averments in the complaint are no evidence. Just a bald statement cannot be accepted as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr (2005) (3) CLT 358 (SC). It is Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 who have produced a copy of the report of the Medical Expert Committee which was constituted on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant with Civil Surgeon, Health Department, Amritsar which is Ex.OP1,2/5 on the record. The report clearly states that “after going through the medical reports provided by Kulwant Singh son of Karnail Singh, resident of Rajasansi on 27.12.2013 and by Dr.J.S.Pannu, Janta Hospital, Amritsar on 17.12.2012, Board of doctors found that patient had fracture shaft of femur left side with diabetes mellitus. The fixation of the fracture femur left side was done with broad DCP with screws. At the time of discharge patient was in healthy condition. In the long run there was implant failure with broken screw and bending of plate. In the opinion made by the board of doctors, there is no negligence found on the part of operating surgeon and the fixation of fracture can be done with plate and screws, or with nailing. This implant failure is a known complication and may be due to early weight bearing.” A perusal of the report shows that the expert committee has totally indemnified the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the attending doctor while fixing of fracture with plate and screws. Simply because in this case, the doctor preferred inserting plate instead of rod and the fixation of the fracture femur left side was done with broad DCP with screws, is no ground to conclude that any negligence was conducted in providing the treatment to the complainant.
9. From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the evidence on record does not prove that there is any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in providing treatment to the complainant, rather the complainant who did not adhere to the instructions of “zero weight bearing on the left leg for a period of 6 months at least”. The complainant himself is at fault, which led to failure to the surgery conducted on his left thigh & no negligence is attributable to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in this regard. Consequently, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 17.06.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
hrg
