Orissa

Jajapur

CC/8/2018

Sri Jogendra Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Dasarathi Mohapatra Propriter Ajanta Clinic. - Opp.Party(s)

Pratap Kumar Ray

30 Jun 2018

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                          

                                                   Dated the 30th day of June,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 08 of 2018

Sri Jogendra Nayak  S/O Late Sanatan Nayak

Vill . Sunguda , P.S. Badachana 

Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                                                     …………....Complainant .                                                                       

                          (Versus)

 Dr.Dasarathi Mohapatra ,proprietor Ajanta Clinic ,At.Chandikhole

P.O.Sunguda,P.S.Badachana ,Dt.Jajpur.

   At/P.O/Dist. Jajpur.                                                                                        …………………..Opp.Party.                                                                                                                                                     .                                                            

For the Complainant:                                     Sri P.K.Ray, Advocate.

For the Opp.Party   :                                      Sri U.N.Sathpathy, Advocate.                                                                                      

                                                                                                      Date of order:   30. 06. 2018.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV DAS,PRESIDENT .

Deficiency in medical service is the grievance of the  petitioner .

            The facts  relevant  as per complaint petition shortly are that the petitioner is a inhabitant of village Sunguda P.S. Badachana within the dist of Jajpur .  On dt. 17.10.17 the petitioner faced an accident inside the house as a result of which he  sustained fracture  injury in his  left hand .Thereafter the petitioner made X-ray of his left hand and  with  the X-ray report  went to  the O.P to  his clinic for his treatment .The O.P  after  verifying  the X-ray report promised to the petitioner to cure his hand and bring it to its original shape  and demanded cash of Rs 3,000/- towards  his fees and expenses. Accordingly after receipt of the above amount on  the same day  i.e on 17.10.17  the O.p treated the petitioner and plastered the  left  hand and  advised to open  after  one month .

            After lapse of one month when the plastered  was opened  by the op it is found that the petitioner  left hand was not cured  rather it is found that the fractured  hand was bent down  and when it was brought to the notice  of the O.P he promised that   in course of time the  left hand shall take its original shape  but it did not happen.  As a result the petitioner  could not be able to perform his daily normal pursuits due to defect of his left hand  .Thereafter the petitioner  met the orthopedic specialist at cuttack  for necessary treatment    but the doctor told that due to defect  in initial treatment  the fractured  hand can not be brought to its normal and original form  .Hence the petitioner sustained mental agony due to deficiency in service of the O.P.

            Accordingly the petitioner filed the present dispute with  the prayer to direct the  O.P  to pay a sum  of Rs5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency and negligence of the O.P  .

            After notice the O.P  entered into appearance and the learned advocate  subsequently filed the written version taking the following stands:-

Averment made by the petitioner para-5 to 11  are the false and baseless .  That the O.P never  demanded    Rs 3,000/ from the petitioner towards his fees and expenses and  promised to the petitioner to cure  his hands and to bring it to   its original shape  .It is also false to say that the petitioner could not be able to perform his duty in the left hand  and met the orthopedic  specialist for necessary treatment   but the doctor told  the petitioner  due to defect in initial treatment his hand can not be cured and brought to   its original form.  .It is also false to say that the petitioner sustained  mental agony due to suffering  for the negligence  of the O.P .

            The real fact  of the case  are that the  O.P  is  a retired a Govt. doctor  and his age is about 76 years  .After his retirement  he remained  in his vill. Chandikhole  chhak  . The O.P in his

service   carrier given his service to the local people    without taking money  from the patient and he has good  reputation in the locality .

That the petitioner  sustained a simple fracture  injury on his left hand and came to the O.p for his treatment  . Accordingly the O.P made plastered  in the left wrist  and prescribed  tablets as per the prescription  filed by the petitioner   without taking any money from him . Now the petitioner  is fully cured  and he is doing his normal work in his left hand  . The O.P  also alleged that the petitioner is working as an advocate  clerk  in chandikhole  court under the advocate of Sri P.K.Ray  Taking the advantage of  this with ill intention the petitioner  falsely   initiated  the case to harass  and blackmail the O.P . That the petitioner never went to cuttack  for his  treatment   with orthopedic doctor as his left wrist was cured   and only filed the dispute to extract  some money without any  cause  from the O.P . 

               On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate for the O.P and the petitioner . Perused the documents in details   :

               It is undisputed fact that after facing an accident the petitioner was treated  in  the clinic of O.P.   and the O.P. plastered the left hand of the petitioner .

             It is a fact that as per allegation of the petitioner after removing of the plaster lapse of one month the alleged left hand is  bent down and when it was brought to the notice of the o.p he promised that in course of time the alleged hand shall come to  its original shape  but it did not happened .

            In this context we have come across with the observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2017(4) CPR-822-N.C ( Medical Superintendent  Vrs. Manjari                 Sinha) wherein it is held that “

“Medical negligence must be proved by expert evidence but in the present case thepetitioner neither has filed the expert evidence or any documentary evidence in support of his grievance . Hence the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

 

O R D E R

            The dispute is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No cost.          

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June,2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.