Bihar

Gaya

Cc.No. 96/2012

Shobha Vati Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Shivendra Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Madan Kumar Sharma

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

    In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

      Consumer Complainant Case No. - 96 of 2012

Subhawati Devi wife of Ram briksh Singh..Complainant

                                        V/s

 Dr. Sivendra Kumar …………………....Opposite Party

Present:
1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President
2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

                                     3. Smt. Sunita Kumari ....Female Member

Dated 24^th  January of ORDER

1. The instant case has been filed by the complainant sobhavati Devi against the opposite party Shivendra Kumar for breach of Service and claimed ₹
2.  In brief the case of the complainant is that she injured at his house situated

              Case No. - 96 of 2012

Village -Khushiyalpur, P.S-Khinjarsaray, District-Gaya on 22 March

3.  The complainant deposited ₹
4. After somedays the complainant felt that injured leg was not cured and then she went to Victor X-ray clinic and she found that her fractured leg was as usual.  on 22 June Anand. The opposite party demanded

      Case No. - 96 of 2012

complained as why did it was not done on first time, the doctor retrriated and ousted her from his Clinic.

5. Thereafter she was treated by doctor Navneet Nishchal and total expenses made by her over
6. The opposite party Dr. Shivendra Kumar appeared and filed his written statement mentioning there in that as per  Honorable  Supreme Court decision this Court has not called for report from Medical experts as directed in case of Martion  F.D. Souza vs Mohammad Ishaq MR  Hence, only on this score the complaint petition must be dismissed.
7. He has no any comment on para 1 and 2 of the complaint petition Para 3, 4 and 5 are wrong and incorrect .Real fact is that the opposite party has treated well to the complainant with due medical care according to medical science although the

                        Case No. - 96 of 2012

complaint's case was complicated .No question arises to realize huge amount from the complainant .The Para 6 of the complaint is correct. The complainant was given direction as in medical prescription and she was directed to come on 22 may

      Case No. - 96 of 2012

from the prescription of Dr. Navneet Nischal that there is no case of negligence nor there is case of unfair act of doctor .She was advised for operation rather fact is that the complainant is an old lady suffering with complicated Tibia fibula earlier at the time of plaster and she has to take all the care but the complainant had not taken care although she was in his treatment.

8. Both parties have filed their evidences on affidavit. The  points of determination before this court is whether the complainant has been succeeded to prove the deficiency in service, medical negligence and professional misconduct caused by the opposite party and whether she is entitled to get the relief as sought for.

                         9.    Before going in the merit of the case let us see what are admitted facts of the case.

1.) The complainant Sobhavati Devi was injured on 22 March            2.) She was treated by the opposite party at his private clinic.
           3.) After taking X Ray the opposite party plastered on his left leg and send her back and she was advised to take medicine and to visit him after 2 months.

        Case No. - 96 of 2012

4.) On 23rd may

5.) On the complainant met the opposite party and he referred to doctor Anand for physician check up.

6.) On 22 June

7.) Latter on the operation was done by Dr. Navneet Nischal. Now the question is whether there is any medical negligence and an unfair act on the part of the opposite party at the time of plaster on the left leg fracture of the complainant.

10.         Since this is a case of

11.   It is admitted fact that the opposite party has plastered the left fractured leg of the

                                                        Case No. - 96 of 2012

Complaint in his private clinic. It is also admitted fact that the fracture of lower third Tibia lEFT was with angulation. The contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party is that the angulation was due to being weight and complication arosed by the act of the complainant. It has been mentioned in the prescription of the complainant by the opposite parties on 22 June The admitted facts of the opposite party and the material available on case record clearly show that the angulation is due to negligence of the opposite party and not due to any act of the complainant.
We are of the opinion that the opposite party has caused deficiency in service and he has done medical negligence due to which angulation was found in lower

                                                        Case No. - 96 of 2012

3rd tibia left of the complainant. We are father of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get expenses for treatments at the opposite parties and compensation for mental and physical harassment and also compensation for treatment at Dr Navneet Nishchal.

12.  We, therefore, direct the opposite party to pay ₹ 40,000 for expenses for treatment caused by the complainant during treatment at his Clinic and ₹ 70,000 for expenses made at Dr Navneet Nichshal and ₹ 55,000 for mental and physical harassment and also ₹ 5,000 for litigation cost, total ₹ 1,70,000 .

13.  The opposite party is directed to pay the said amount within 2 months from the date of this order and in case of non-payment within this period 8% interest per annum will be applicable till actual payment of the said amount and also the complaint will be entitled to get the same amount if not paid through process of court.

Female Member           Male Member                      President

Sunita Kumari               Syed Mohtashim Akhtar       Ramesh Chandra Singh