Complainant’s case is that on 19^th May, 2014 the complainant met with an accident and had a fracture in his left wrist . He came to Dr. Op . X-ray was done . Doctor seeing the X-ray report casted his hand and gave some pain killer and advised to take rest. Petitioner did not get rid of pain and again came on 25.5.2014. Doctor took reduction process but that process did

not process accurate result in case of fracture of joint like wrist.  But the patient did not feel well and came again and again but doctor advised him to take rest. The casting was opened on 19.7.2014 . The broken site was visibly mal united and wrist of the petitioner was visibly de-shaped. It is alleged that after one month also patient was unable follow his daily pursuit. The patient came to Dr.Souvik Bardhan , Consulting Orthopaedic Surgeon. Dr. Diagnosed petitioner to be a case of mal-union fracture . Another doctor also told it was a mal-united fracture. It is further alleges that the patient was not working well with his wrist joint. Accordingly being unable to get rid of trouble of fractured hand , the complainant has come before this Forum for compensation against Doctor who first treated the patient.

       In this case the oP has filed Written version denying inter alia all the material allegations. It is stated by the OP that considering the sufferings of the patient gentle traction was given, reduction was achieved, fore arm cast was applied in neutral position of the wrist. He was advised to lie down flat on bed i.e. absolute bed rest, keeping hand elevated, other swelling would increase resulting in increasing pain. He also stated that the method adopted by the Op , the standard method of treatment in case of fracture in question. Thereafter, patient condition became good on 24.5.2014 and patient was advised for active exercise. On 31.5.2014 completion of cast was done. This was standard method of treatment of Collis fracture . It was planned to remove the cast at 8^th week. But patient requested to remove the cast after six weeks because there was pain. However, after 7^th week on 12.7.2014 the cast was removed. The patient has no pain. Patient was told to continue exercise. On 24.7.2014 there was no

swelling no tenderness in the fracture site. So active exercise was advised. . After that doctor advised to the patient for Physiotherapy . Accordingly, it the doctor’s case that doctor has given necessary treatment as per treatment protocol of fracture in question.

            Complainant has filed some documents namely Xerox copy of treatment sheet from 19.3.2014 , 22.8.2014 , 28.9.2014, 10.10.2014, 2.11.2014 , 7.1.2015 and report of Diagnostic Centre of left wrist and right wrist on 3.11.2014. Op has filed some authorized Text book as annexres.

                                                POINTS FOR DECISION  

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3. Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

Point no.1

                The complainant has taken service from the doctor in lieu of fees. So the complainant is a consumer as per Section 12 of C.P.Act , 1986. The point no.1 is thus answered in favour of the complainant.

Point no.2 & 3

            Complainant in his evidence as well as written complaint stated his case. The complainant has filed X-ray clinic report . It is admitted position that the complainant suffered Colles fracture and doctor oP made treatment as per his treatment protocol of Orthopaedic

fracture Alleviate Practice and Protocol . The complainant did not file the X-ray film . The X ray report on 3.11.2014 filed by the complainant shows that “ there is firm union of the fracture of left wrist . No comparison was done as old X-ray was not available. This report was done by Dr.A.K.Bose , Consultant Radiologist of Diagnostic Centre, Mogra Station Road, Mogra . So , this report in comparison with other X-ray report obviously shows better position. The patient has stated different allegations but those allegation has not been proved by observation of any other Orthopaedic doctor. Confining ourselves within the record and material it is air light clear that doctor has discharged his duties with his experience and knowledge with attention. Throughout the treatment procedure reflected in the series of prescription from 19.3.2014 to 3.11.2014 it appears that doctor has applied his mind with due attention for cure the fracture by taking recourse of medicine, exercise and plastering . So , allegations of the complainant , that doctor was negligent in treatment does not come out from the material on record. Therefore, after going through the argument of both sides , complaint and Written version and also going through different text, questionnaire and principles of law , we must hold that there is no iota of evidence to attribute guilt of negligence on the OP in performing his treatment towards complainant. Thus, evidence on record fails to prove the case of the complainant and the same is dismissed on contest. Hence it is-

                                                            Ordered

            That the CC no. 45 of 2015 be and he same is dismissed on contest but without cost.

            Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost.