Dr. Vimlendu Vimal V/S Shyam Kumar - Consumer Court Case

fundamental medical defects caused by the opposite party. Subsequently the complainant met with another orthopedic expert at Gaya namely Dr Manoj Kumar and also consulted at Filgria Hospital, Gaya and the expert doctor Vinod Kumar Singh who persuaded and observed the affected part of the complainant and all of them found stiffness of the bones associated with acute pain in the left wrist to the complainant.

4. The complainant got personal loan to make consultation with a Dr. John Mukhopadhyay at Patna and on 28 August loan. As such on account of gross negligence of opposite party the left wrist of the complainant has been caused to become incurable accept the hope that the major operation to be done by the Orthopedic at Patna might correct it. As such the opposite party rendered deficiency in service and gross negligence to damage the working hand of the complainant.

Case No. 24 of

5. The opposite party appeared and filed his written statement mentioning therein that the complainant is wholly misconceived, frivolous and vexious which is unsustainable in the eye of law and has been filed without any justified reason against the opposite party just to harass and extort illegal sum of money, Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

6. There is no specific, sciencetific and justified allegations in regard to the negligence for deficiency in providing service has been made by the complainant against the opposite party and the complainant has totally fail to explain as to how he is involved and the opposite party was negligent, hence the complainant is failed to explain the cause of action. The complaint is bad for none joinder and misjoinder of parties. The opposite party is well qualified and a reputed doctor with substantial goodwill and experience of longstanding successful medical practice.
The patient had fracture lower radius and ulna with a severe comminuted fracture for which he came to the opposite party on 20 October

Case No. 24 of

everything. On the next day on 21 October

7. Now the question arises weather the complainant has proved the medical negligence caused by the opposite party and whether there is deficiency in service on his part.

8. The admitted facts of this case are as follows:-

The complainant had fracture lower radius and ulna with a severe comminuted fracture for which the patient came to the opposite party on 20 October

Case No. 24 of

done. On 7th November

9. The grievance of the complainant is that due to medical negligence of the opposite party there was wrong alignment of bones and this has been also found by another doctor Vinod Kumar Singh. He has found stiffness of bones associated with acute pain in the left wrist to the complainant. Doctor John Mukhopadhyay at Patna also examined him and advised him for major operation over the affected part.

10. In support of their case both parties have filed their evidence on affidavits and documents along with X-Ray plates. There is not denial of X-rays by the opposite party of the complainant. The medical prescription of doctor Manoj Kumar shows deformity and stiffness at left wrist of the Complainant. Medical prescription of Doctor John Mukhopadhyay at Patna also shows deformity, tenderness on the left wrist of the complainant. Necked view of X-Ray of the complainant also shows the same.

11. After considering all the documents present on case record and the evidences on affidavit filed by both parties we are

Case No. 24 of

of the opinion that due to gross negligence of opposite party the left wrist of the complainant has become stiff and deform and to complete cure the patient has to expense medical and operation charges and he is unable to perform his job.
We, therefore, direct the opposite party to pay ₹

Female Member Male Member President

Sunita Kumari Syed Mohtashim Akhtar Ramesh Chandra Singh