Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/584/2015

Manohar Lal Meena s/o Goti Ram Meena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Mamodia Proctology and I.R.C.Centre through Dr B M Mamodiya - Opp.Party(s)

Umesh Nagpal

01 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 584 /2015

 

Shri Manoharlal Meena s/o Gotiram Meena Village Peelodapura Tehsil Sapotra Distt. Karauli.

Vs.

 

Dr. Mamodia Procotology & IRC Centre, 264 Near Parnami Mandir, Raja Park, Jaipur through Dr.B.M.Mamodia.

 

 

Date of Order 1.02.2016

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr. Manoharlal appellant present in-person

Mr.Chandra Shekhar Dubey counsel for the respondent

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 3^rd dated 11.3.2015 whereby the complaint has been rejected by the court below.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he was not having piles. His signatures for consent were taken on blank paper. He has not given consent for burn from IRC whereas his fibrosis have been burnt and he has suffered agony.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that there is no evidence that the doctor was negligent. From settled procedure the IRC compress has been given to the appellant and no negligence has been committed by the respondent.

 

Heard the counsel for the respondent as well as the appellant in-person and perused the impugned order as well as the original file of the matter.

 

The consent has been given by the appellant to have compress through IRC and which was done by the respondent.

3

The appellant was having fibrosis at his anus and they were treated medically. He has not been operated for piles as he was not having piles.

 

Nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondent was negligent or compress from IRC was not a settled procedure adopted by the doctors. The appellant has referred prescription of Mayuri Surgical Hospital Anx. 1 and want to stress that his fibrosis were burnt but there is no mention of the same in Ex. 1.

 

The respondent has rightly relied upon AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1050 Kusum Sharma Vs. Batra Hospital where it has been held that when surgery was performed by expert opinion, no negligence could be attributed to the doctor. Here in the present case no negligence has been attributed to the respondent, hence, the court below after scanning the evidence has rightly dismissed the complaint and there is no ground for interference . The appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm