This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of             Sri. Raneru Kiran Kumar, Advocate for complainant; and of                           Sri. Machha Nagesh Babu, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri. P. Madhav Raja, President)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant was admitted in opposite party hospital on 06-03-2010 due to a road accident and suffered comminuted fracture of left ankle.  The opposite party conducted operation on 07-03-2010 to left leg of the complainant and inserted screws, nail, plates and discharged the complainant on 31-03-2010. The complainant stated that the opposite party negligently operated and fixed the nails and screws due to which it was infected severely and got pain and swelling to the left leg.  The complainant paid Rs.30,375/- towards medical and other expenses to the opposite party.  The complainant further submitted that the complainant took treatment with Dr. B. Srinivasa Rao, M.S.(Ortho) at Sridevi Nursing home, Khammam, he has conducted operation on 10-02-2011 as the implant fixed by the opposite party was failed, the complainant discharged on 19-03-2011 after removal of screws.  The complainant further submitted that he spent Rs.20,500/- towards the medical and other treatment charges, the complainant also approached to Yeshoda Hospital, Hyderabd and got treatment and advised by Dr. Deepak Mishra on 20-09-2011, and stated that he has also taken treatment at Mourya Hospital, Warangal on 14-05-2011.  The complainant is working at Kurnavalli about 50 Kilometers away from Khammam,   he has faced much inconvenience and hardship while attending his duties because of infection and swelling of the left ankle.  Hence due to the negligent attitude of the opposite party treatment the complainant has suffered physically, mentally and sustained huge financial losses. Therefore the complainant has claimed Rs.2,00,000/- through legal notice to the opposite party but the opposite party did not heed any more.  Therefore, the complainant approached this Forum for redressal.

3.      In support of the complainant contention he has filed the following documents, which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-13.

5.      On receipt of the notice the opposite party appeared through his counsel and filed counter, in his counter the opposite party denied the allegations about the deficiency of service, negligent treatment and carelessness on his part.  The Opposite Party further contended that the complainant was brought to his hospital on 06-03-2010 with history of R.T.A. he got grossly comminuted displaced fracture left ankle involving all three malleolus with huge swelling,  as such he was admitted as in-patient.  The opposite party has explained the cause of treatment and non-union and consequences of the surgery to the patient i.e. complainant, thereafter the complainant has consented for the surgery.  The surgery was done under C-Arm control; the screws were inserted to set the fractures.  The surgery was successful and during the stay in hospital the complainant was doing the against the medical advises.  The complainant was discharged on 31-03-2010 with an advice to take rest till the complete healing of fracture and ask to come for regular follow-up treatment for necessary removal of the screws after the fracture getting united and after healing the injuries.  Complainant came after 6 months of the surgery to the hospital for the checkup with complaint of pain.  The opposite party had taken X-Ray which was revealed disturbance of the screw fixed by the opposite party.   This was happened of non following of instructions of the opposite party, the opposite party has informed the complainant for removal of implants but the complainant did not turn up and blamed the opposite party for his sufferance. Their after the complainant did not returned back to the opposite party and  complainant got removed the implant fixed by the opposite party by Dr. B. Srinivasa Rao, MS. Ortho Surgeon, Khammam on 10-02-2011 i.e. nearly one year after surgery done by the opposite party.  The opposite party advised the complainant even much prior to the 10-02-2011 to undergo further surgery and get the screws removed.  Therefore, nothing can be attributed to the opposite party with the negligence.  It is the complainant who did not follow the medical advice of the opposite party, the other medical prescriptions of the hospitals filed by the complainant does not mentioned about medical negligence on part of the opposite party.  However without accepting the negligence, and as abounded caution the opposite party is having a New India Insurance Company Limited , Khammam indemnity policy bearing No.610902/36/09/05/00000013 valid from 21-04-2009 to 20-04-2010, as such the complainant may make the insurance company as opposite party No.2 in this case.  Hence complainant may be dismissed with the costs.

5.      The complainant examined himself as PW-1, Dr. B. Srinivasa Rao, M.S. Ortho examined as PW-2 and the opposite party examined as RW-1.

6.     Both parties filed written arguments.

7.      Upon perusing the material papers available on record and written arguments, now the points that arose for consideration are,

Point No.1:- Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite party in treating the complainant/patient?

Point No.2:- To what relief?

Point No.1:-        

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant has joined in the opposite party hospital with history of R.T.A. on 06-03-2010.  He was got fractured at left ankle,  as per the cross examination of the PW.1 i.e. the complainant that the complainant went to the hospital voluntarily as the opposite party  is a good doctor and after taking X-Ray, the problem and consequences were explained by the opposite party to the complainant and to his attendants.  The complainant was got operated and discharged  on 31-03-2010, and reported to his duties on 16-06-2010 and continued the treatment with the opposite party till September 2010 but did not submit any document to the court to show that he took treatment with the opposite party till September-2010.  The Complainant deposed he was unable to attend to his duties for about 8 months.  The complainant deposition contradicts with his each other  statements and further stated that he has approached the opposite party after 6 months with a pain.  The complainant on 10-02-2011 on the advice of Dr. Srinivasa Rao, M.S. Ortho underwent surgery  at Sridevi Nursing Home, Khammam by Dr. B. Srinivasa Rao i.e. PW-2 for removal of screws and PW-2 deposed in his chief examination that except removing screw no other treatment was given.  In continuation of complainant cross examination the complainant deposed that at the time of surgery the screw was fixed properly as per the X-Ray.  Dr.B. Srinivasa Rao, M.S. Orthopedic Surgeon PW-2  stated in his chief examination that at the time of examination of the complainant he was with implant failure in the left Tri mollelor fracture.  The implant failure may be due to the age factor, osteoporosis (decreased bone density mass), comminuted fractures at lower limbs near weight bearing joints, decrease purchase of bone, early weight bearing, repetitive load bearing and also any co-morbid conditions like infection, hypertension, diabetes, mellitus, smoking and hyper sensitivity to the implant of individual.    The PW-2 in his cross examination deposed that the fractures were united by the time of removing screws and the implants were displaced which was causing the pain.  The RW-1 i.e. opposite party doctor stated in his chief examination that the screws were disturbed because of early movement and early weight bearing by the complainant.  Dr. B.Srinivasa Rao, Ortho surgeon has removed only screws after the fracture united.  The complainant was not followed the opposite party advice after discharge from the opposite party hospital and due to the early moment, early weight bearing only the implants screws were displaced.  The other doctors medical prescriptions i.e. Exhibits A8 to Exhibit A10 does not show anywhere the cause of the displacement of screws, and the complainant does not substantiate any proper documentary evidence to prove is contentions  and allegations. Therefore, we are of opinion that the opposite party is not found any fault and negligent on his part and also not liable for any sort of action for deficiency, negligent services.  Therefore, the point no.1 is answered against the complainant.

Point No.2:- As no liability is not proved against the opposite party hence no relief is granted against the Opposite Party. The Point No.2 is answered accordingly against the Complainant.

8.      In the result complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 11^th day of September, 2017.

   Member                       President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

PW – 1 - Sri. Gangula Ramanarasaiah          RW-1 - Dr. Sri. D.S. Hanuman

PW – 2 - Sri. Dr. B. Srinivasa Rao                                                                          

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

  Member                          President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

 Khammam.