BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 15 of  2014

Date of Institution: 06.01.2014

Date of Decision: 29.09.2015

Sukhbir Kaur wife of Sh.Sukhdev Singh son of Sh.Randhir Singh, resident of H.No.102, Gali No.5-A, Guru Amar Dass Avenue, Ajnala Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Hargun Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Managing Director, Principal Doctor.
2. Dr.Gurvinder Singh.
3. Dr.Yanish Bhanot, both practicing at Hargun Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar.
4. National Insurance Company Limited, 93, District Shopping Complex, 1^st Floor, Near Passport Office, Amritsar, through its Branch Manager.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Talwinder Singh, Advocate.

               For the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2: Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate.

             For Opposite Party No.3: Exparte.

             For Opposite Party No.4: Sh.Sunil Davessar, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Sukhbir Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she suffered injuries in a road accident on 1.4.2012  and FIR No. 40 of 2012 was registered by P.S.Sadar, Batala, Gurdaspur  under section 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC. The complainant got admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and remained under the treatment of Dr.Gurvinder Singh- Opposite Party No.2 and Dr.Yanish Bhanot-Opposite Party No.3 of Opposite Party No.1-hospital. The complainant was operated twice on 20.4.2012 and 27.4.2012 by Opposite Parties and  hips/ joints were replaced by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and the complainant spent a sum of Rs.4 lacs, but the operations of the complainant  were not done properly and a sum of Rs.3.5 lacs were spent by the complainant on her operations for replacement of her hips/ joints at Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amrtisar. Apart from this, the complainant also suffered separate expenses on her treatment and the complainant is still under the treatment and is paying to Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar. Both the operations done by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 were not properly done and the complainant suffered pain in her hips which were replaced by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. In the month of March, 2013 the complainant approached Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar, where  said hospital replaced  hips and joints of the complainant on 21.3.2013. The complainant got checked her hip joints from Nijjar Scan & Diagnostic Centre, Court Road, Amritsar two times. After consultation, the complainant was admitted in Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar and the complainant remained admitted there from 8.4.2013 to 22.4.2013 where she was again operated and one uncemented hip was replaced and a sum of Rs.1,32,562/- was charged by Indo Organics Pharmaceuticals, Amritsar, vide invoice No. 94 dated 22.4.2013. Apart from this, the complainant also spent a sum of Rs.56,266/- on her treatment at Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar. The act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as well as gross negligence.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.10 lacs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that on 1.4.2012 the complainant came in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital in serious condition with alleged road side injuries about 2 hours back, with Left Ear Bleed, Right Eye Bleed, Lacerations, Dysenea, pain right pelvis region, in restless condition, with SPO2 saturation 86%. After taking consent  for treatment, she was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital for management of injuries. Immediate treatment was started by way of requisite investigations and other treatment. The CT Scan got done on 1.4.2012, NC CT Scan Head and Face showed diffuse cerebral edema with fractures of the anterior wall, lateral wall and the roof of the right maxillary sinuses, the lateral wall of the right orbit, the right zygomatic arch the lateral wall of the right orbit, the neck of the mandible on the right side and the basi-occiput on the left side. NC CT Scan Chest showed Consolidative Changes in both the lung fields more so on the right side, Bilateral Haemothorax more so on the right side, fracture of the ribs on the right side, the right scapula, the medial end of the clavical on the left side with surgical emphysema and  mimal degree of pneumomoediastinum. NC and CE CT Scan Abdomen  showed Small Laceration and Contusions involving Spleen, with Miniml degree of Haemoperitoneum.  NC CT Scan both Hip joints showed fracture of the anterior wall, the posterior wall and the roof of the acetabulum with  involvement of the superior and the inferior pubic ramus. NC CE Chest showed Mild to moderate  degree of Bilateral Pleural Effusion with consolidative changes and multiple fractures of the ribs bilaterally, medial end of both the clavicles bilaterally in the medial portion.  NC CE CT Scan Abdomen showed “Fracture of the Acetabulum on the right side  with contusions to the adjacent musculature and minimal degree of fluid in the peritoneal cavity; and  fracture of the inferior Pubic Ramus on the Right Side.” Immediate consultation of Opposite Party No.3-Dr.Yanish Bhanot (Neurosurgery) was taken as the patient was suffering from injuries in the head. Role of Dr.Yanish Bhanot-Opposite Party No.3 qua the patient in question was only to the extent of managing head injury conservatively only, for which he neither advised any surgery, nor any surgery was done by him, nor he was associated in any of the surgeries performed on the patient in the Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. During the course of treatment in the hospital, after taking informed consent, taking all aseptic precautions, chest tube as well as central venous line was put in the patient. Since at the time of admission, the patient was in serious condition, after taking her fit for  anesthesia as well as surgery, on 20.4.2012 after explaining line of treatment and surgery and taking consent thereof, under aseptic conditions, in the fully equipped operation theatre of the Opposite Party No.1-Hospital, the patient was operated for her accidental injuries to the hip joint by Opposite Party No.2, Orthopedic Surgeon under spinal anesthesia, assisted by Dr.Sukeerat Singh, M.D.Anaesthesia. During the course of surgery, repair of fracture of acetabulum was done with fixation of R.C.Plate and screws; and open reduction and internal fixation of centrally dislocated right hip joint was done. The surgery was complete success. The second surgery was done on 27.4.2012 by Dr.Gurinder Singh, M.S.(Surgery), M.Ch (Plastic Surgery) for repair of fracture injuries on the face after taking informed consent for surgery as well as anesthesia, in the operation theatre of Opposite Party No.1, under general anesthesia given by Dr.Sukeerat Singh and the surgery assisted by Dr.Amanpreet Singh. During this surgery, teeth were put in occlusion with IMF Screws and wires, Right maxilla fracture was properly reduced, and fracture was fixed with mim plates and screws. This surgery was also a complete success. The patient was discharged in satisfactory condition on 2.5.2012 and had been coming in regular follow-up of which ,record has been concealed by the complainant with malafide  intention. The patient reported some problem in operated hip joint in the year 2013, OPD slip of which consultation, has been concealed by the complainant with malafide intention, for which it was advised to her that she might require replacement of hip joint due to delayed avascular necrosis of the hip joint, which is a known complication of that type of injury she suffered in the accident, for management and repair of which injuries, she came to Opposite Party No.1-Hospital.  But the complainant was advised for further follow up and  has further concealed the  record of such OPD advice. There is no evidence worth his name to show that there is any negligence or deficiency or delay in service at the hands of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 during the course of  treatment of the patient. The treatment was performed in the Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on standard scientific lines as per condition of the patient by fully competent, qualified and well trained/ experienced doctors  and para medical staff of the hospital. However, at the time of admission of the patient in the hospital during relevant times, she was clearly explained that as per the nature of injuries she suffered, for treatment of which she was admitted in the hospital, she might  have to go for replacement of the hip joint in the long run. The alleged surgery in Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar, can not be the consequence of the treatment done in Opposite Party No.1 Hospital. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.3 was served, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 so Opposite Party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 7.5.2014 of this Forum. However, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 also filed joint written reply on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 also.   
4. Opposite Party No.4  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has miserably failed to give detailed particulars regarding any alleged medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. The present complaint is bad on account of non joinder of necessary parties as the complainant obtained medical treatment from Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar, but said hospital alongwith treating doctors have not been impleaded as parties. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
5.  Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C39 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence the documents Ex.OP1,2/1 to Ex.OP1,2/ 6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Similarly, Opposite Party No.4 tendered into evidence policy documents Ex.OP4/1 and affidavit of Sh.H.S.Chawla, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP4/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.4.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant suffered injuries in a road accident on 1.4.2012  and she was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on the same  day i.e. 1..4.2012 where  she remained admitted from 1.4.2012 to 2.5.2012. The complainant submitted  that she was operated twice on 20.4.2012 and 27.4.2012 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and hips/ joints were replaced by Opposite Parties  and they charged a sum of Rs.4 lacs approximately, but the operations were not properly done by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. FIR No. 40 of 2012 regarding the accident has also been registered  by P.S.Sadar, Batala, Gurdaspur  under section 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC. The complainant  remained under sufferings in her hips/ joints which were replaced by  Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. The complainant could not walk properly. Therefore, the complainant approached Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar, where on 21.3.2013 replaced hips/ joints were got inspected through Nijjar Scan Centre, Amritsar on 21.3.2013 and again on 3.4.2013 and then after consultation, the complainant was admitted in Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar on 8.4.2013 where the complainant was again operated and one uncemented hip was replaced and she was discharged on 22.4.2013, where she spent a sum of Rs.3,37,688/- approximately.  Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital while performing the operation regarding hips/ joints replacement of the complainant, did not perform operations properly, as a result of which the complainant suffered physical pain, mental harassment and all this amounts to gross medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that in these circumstances, the complainant has to remain admitted in another hospital i.e. Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar where she was operated again for hips/ joints replacement and as such, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are liable to pay compensation for the sufferings, mental and physical harassment by the complainant.     
9. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 is that patient/ complainant Smt.Sukhbir Kaur was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 1.4.2012 in serious condition, as result of road side injuries with Left Ear Bleed, Right Eye Bleed, Lacerations, Dysenea pain right pelvis region, in restless condition, with SPO2 saturation 86%. Consent for treatment was taken before she was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Immediate treatment was started with requisite investigations. The CT Scan of the patient was got  done on 1.4.2012, NC CT Scan Head and Face showed diffuse cerebral edema with fractures of the anterior wall, lateral wall and the roof of the right maxillary sinuses, the lateral wall of the right orbit, the right zygomatic arch the lateral wall of the right orbit, the neck of the mandible on the right side and the basi-occiput on the left side. NC CT Scan Chest showed Consolidative Changes in both the lung fields, Bilateral Haemothorex, fracture of the ribs on the right side, the right  scapula, the medial end of the clavical on the left side with surgical emphysema and  mimal degree of pneumomoediastinum. NC and CE CT Scan Abdomen  showed “Small Laceration and Contusions involving Spleen, with Miniml degree of Haemoperitoneum.  NC CT Scan both Hip joints showed fracture of the anterior wall, the posterior wall and the roof of the acetabulum with  involvement of the superior and the inferior pubic ramus. NC CE Chest showed Mild to moderate  degree of Bilateral Pleural Effusion with consolidative changes and multiple fractures of the ribs bilaterally, medial end of both the clavicles bilaterally in the medial portion.  NC CE CT Scan Abdomen of the patient showed fracture of the Acetabulum on the right side, etc. Opposite Party No.3-Dr.Yanish Bhanot (Neurosurgery) was  immediately consulted as the patient was suffering from injuries in the head. Said doctor only managed head injury of the complainant  conservatively only. He neither advised any surgery nor  performed any surgery upon the patient nor he was associated in any of the surgery perform on the patient. During the course of treatment, all aseptic precautions were taken, chest tube as well as central venous line was put in the patient. The patient was in serious condition, so after  making her fit for  anesthesia as well as surgery, on 20.4.2012  the patient was operated for her accidental injuries to the hip joint by Opposite Party No.2, Orthopaedic Surgeon under spinal anesthesia, assisted by Dr.Sukeerat Singh, M.D.Anaesthesia. On surgery repair of fracture of acetabulum was done with fixation of R.C.Plate and screws and open reduction and internal fixation of centrally dislocated right hip joint was done. The surgery was complete success. The second surgery was done on 27.4.2012 by Dr.Gurinder Singh, M.S.(Surgery), M.Ch (Plastic Surgery) for repair of fracture injuries on the face after taking informed consent for surgery as well as anesthesia and this surgery was assisted by  by Dr.Amanpreet Singh. During this surgery, teeth were put in occlusion with IMF Screws and wired, Right maxilla fracture was properly reduced, and fracture was fixed with mim plates and screws. This surgery was also a complete success. The patient was discharged in satisfactory condition on 2.5.2012 as per discharge card Ex.C2. The patient was in regular follow-up, but the complainant has  concealed the said record. The patient reported some problem in operated hip joint in the year 2013 for which she was advised that she might require replacement of hip joint due to delayed avascular necrosis of the hip joint, which is a known complication of the type of injury she suffered in the accident. The patient did not turn up. No surgery for replacement of hip joint was ever done in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. There was no negligence or deficiency or delay in service on he part of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and other treating doctors  during the course of treatment of patient at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. The treatment was performed in the Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on standard scientific lines by competent, qualified and well trained/ experienced doctors  and para medical staff of the Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. At the time of admission of the patient in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital, she was clearly explained that as per the nature of injuries she has suffered, she might have to go for replacement of the hip joint in the long run. However, the complainant has concealed the record of follow up treatment at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital.  The alleged surgery in Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar can not be the consequence of the treatment done in Opposite Party No.1 Hospital. Moreover, the surgery of the patient/ complainant performed in Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar has no concern with the medical treatment  of the patient performed at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital as the complainant was already informed by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 that in the long run, she may  have to go for replacement of the hip joint. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that all these facts averred by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have been confirmed by Dr.H.S.Sohal, Professor and Head, Department of Orthopedics, Government Medical College, Amritsar, in his statement on oath, as expert, recorded by this Forum on 7.4.2015. The case of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 is also supported by Dr.Hardas Singh Sandhu, of Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar, as per his statement recorded on oath in this Forum on 20.3.2015. Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 submitted that in light of the treatment of the patient at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital Ex.OP1,2/1 running into 251 pages, the treatment of the complainant was done at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital in standard scientific line and there is no lapse or any medical negligence on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 qua the complainant during her treatment at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital.
10. Whereas case the Opposite Party No.4 is that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Party No.4. Opposite Party No.4 shall be liable  only if Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 insured with Opposite Party No.4 are held liable for any compensation to the complainant, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. At present, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.4 qua the complainant as well as Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 insured.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant suffered serious injuries in a road accident on 1.4.2012 and she was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 1.4.2012. As per treatment record of Opposite Party No.1-Hospital Ex.OP1,2/1 and as per the discharge card of patient Ex.C2 . She was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital in serious condition with Left Ear Bleed, Right Eye Bleed, Lacerations, Dysenea pain right pelvis region, in restless condition, with SPO2 saturation 86%. Consent  for treatment was taken before she was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Immediate treatment was started with requisite investigations. The CT Scan of the patient was got  done on 1.4.2012, NC CT Scan Head and Face showed diffuse cerebral edema with fractures of the anterior wall, lateral wall and the roof of the right maxillary sinuses, the lateral wall of the right orbit, the right zygomatic arch the lateral wall of the right orbit, the neck of the mandible on the right side and the basi-occiput on the left side. NC CT Scan Chest showed Consolidative Changes in both the lung fields, Bilateral Haemothorex, fracture of the ribs on the right side, the right scapula, the medial end of the clavical on the left side with surgical emphysema and  minimal degree of pneumomoediastinum. NC and CE CT Scan Abdomen  showed “Small Laceration and Contusions involving Spleen, with Minimal degree of Haemoperitoneum.  NC CT Scan both Hip joints showed fracture of the anterior wall, the posterior wall and the roof of the acetabulum with  involvement of the superior and the inferior pubic ramus. NC CE Chest showed Mild to moderate  degree of Bilateral Pleural Effusion with consolidative changes and multiple fractures of the ribs bilaterally, medial end of both the clavicles bilaterally in the medial portion.  NC CE CT Scan Abdomen of the patient showed fracture of the Acetabulum on the right side, etc. As the complainant had suffered injuries in the head injury also, therefore,   Opposite Party No.3-Dr.Yanish Bhanot (Neurosurgeon) was  consulted and he managed head injury of the complainant  conservatively. After taking informed consent and taking all  aseptic precautions, chest tube as well as central venous line was put in the patient. At the time of operation of the patient, her condition was very serious. So, after making her fit for  anesthesia as well as surgery, on 20.4.2012  she was operated for her accidental injuries to the hip joint by Opposite Party No.2-Dr.Gurvinder Singh, Orthopaedic Surgeon under spinal anesthesia, assisted by Dr.Sukeerat Singh, M.D.Anaesthesia. On surgery, repair of fracture of acetabulum was done with fixation of R.C.Plate and screws and open reduction and internal fixation of centrally dislocated right hip joint was done. No surgery of replacement of hip joint was ever done in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital as alleged by the complainant. As per the record of Opposite Party No.1-Hospital regarding the treatment of the patient Ex.OP1,2/1 surgery was successful. The second surgery was done on 27.4.2012 by Dr.Gurinder Singh, M.S.(Surgery), M.Ch (Plastic Surgery) for repair of fracture injuries on the face after taking informed consent for surgery as well as anesthesia and this surgery was assisted by  by Dr.Amanpreet Singh. During this surgery, teeth were put in occlusion with IMF Screws and wired, Right maxilla fracture was properly reduced, and fracture was fixed with mim plates and screws. This surgery was also a complete success.  As per the record of the treatment of the patient at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2, the  patient was discharged in satisfactory condition on 2.5.2012. She was advised follow up and the patient was coming in follow up. The patient/ complainant  reported some problem in operated hip joint for which she was advised that she may require replacement of hip joint due to delayed avascular necrosis of the hip joint, which is a known complication of the type of injury she suffered in the accident, but thereafter, the  patient did not turn up. The complainant alleges that  Opposite Party No.2 did not perform the surgery properly at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. She had taken he medicines as per the directions of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, but even then, she remained ill and did not walk property, so she consulted Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar in March, 2013 where she was inspected and after investigation/ diagnosis, she was admitted in that hospital on 8.4.2013 for hip joint replacement because hip joint replacement was not properly done by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and  she paid Rs.1,32,562/- to Indo Organics Pharmaceuticals, Amritsar  for uncemented hip vide invoice No. 94 dated 22.4.2013 Ex.C21. She also spent a sum of Rs.56,266/- on her treatment at Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar as per bills Ex.C23 to Ex.C27 and she was discharged on 22.4.2013 as per discharge card of Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar Ex.C22. The complainant submitted that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital did not perform hip  joint replacement surgery of the complainant properly as a result of which, she suffered a lot and remained continuously ill and could not walk properly, so she had to undergo these surgeries at Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar again for the replacement of hip joint and this time, one uncemented hip  of the complainant was replaced. All these allegations of the complainant are not supported by record produced by the complainant herself i.e. medical record/ discharge card of the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital as well as medical treatment record of the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital during her admission from 1.4.2012 to 2.5.2012 Ex.OP1,2/1 running into 251 pages.  The complainant was never operated for hip joint replacement nor any surgery for replacement of hip or other joints was done  by Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital during the course of treatment at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Moreover, the condition of the complainant at the time of admission was so serious; her hip joint replacement could not be done. Further, keeping in view the age of the patient as she was only 41 years old at the time of her admission in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 1.4.2012, every effort was made to protect the original/ natural hip joint of the patient. This fact has  been duly corroborated by Dr.H.S.Sohal, Professor and Head, Department of Orthopedics, Government Medical College, Amritsar, in his statement on oath recorded on 7.4.2015 before this Forum that he had gone through the record of  patient Sukhbir Kaur (complainant) at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. She was admitted  with multiple injuries alongwith head injury. She was operated upon on 20.4.2012 after medical fitness of the patient for fraction central dislocation right hip joint. Reconstruction of the Acetabulem was done with reconstruction plates. The pillar of the Acetabulem was nicely reconstructed and head of the femur was in normal position as per post operation Sciagram (X-ray) dated 21.4.2012.  The fracture of the ribs with pleural affusion was treated conservatively. There was no need of  surgical intervention for fractured ribs. The patient was having fracture of the maxilla right side which was fixed by plastic surgeon. This surgery was performed on 27.4.2012. The patient was discharged on 2.5.2012 in satisfactory condition. This witness has categorically stated that this was the right method of the treatment in a 41 yeas old person. One should try to save natural head of the femur of the patient when there is no changes in the femur head. The patient with the fracture of both pillars of Acetabulam with central dislocation of hip, there was 30% chances of going into a avascular necrosis of the head of the femur of the patient within a year or so. The Avascular necrosis is due to the kind of injury,  the patient was having and not due to the surgical complication because the plate was fixed away from the capsule of the hip joint. One has to fix cup. This expert Orthopaedic  witness has categorically sated that as per the record, there is no deficiency in treatment of the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. As per the record  produced by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 regarding the treatment of the complainant Ex.OP1,2/1, there is no deficiency/ medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 for the treatment of the complainant. The complainant was advised follow up and in follow up the complainant complained some problem in hip joint, for which she was advised that she might require replacement of hip joint due to delayed avascular necrosis of the hip joint, which is a known complication of the type of injury she suffered in the accident, but thereafter, the complainant did not turn up for follow up at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital, rather she approached Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar where she was operated for hip joint replacement. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 also examined Dr.Hardas Singh Sandhu of Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar, who operated the complainant for hip joint replacement at Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar where the complainant remained admitted from 8.4.2013 to 22.4.2013 as per discharge card Ex.C22 ;  who also deposed before this Forum that the complainant was admitted in Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar on 8.4.2013 with pain ,limitation of movement and limp.  Her x-ray of the pelvis shows internal fixation of Socket of the hip (Acetabula). The operation was carried out in the hospital where she was admitted. Total hip replacement of the right hip was carried out in their hospital on 9.4.2013 using non cemented total hip. She was  discharged from the hospital on 22.4.2013. The complainant was earlier treated at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital where she was operated, where socket of the hip joint was reconstructed and fixed with reconstruction plates. There was  no hip joint replacement done at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. The patient would have suffered more severe pain and probably would not have been able to walk if previous surgery had not  been performed. The surgery done at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital is technically correct. Previous surgery done at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital was absolutely necessary and correct. He did not detect any defect in the surgery done in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Total hip replacement  is a primary procedure for this type of the fracture, has  got  special indication (1) if the age of the patient is 60  years or above, or (2) if it not technically possible to reconstruct the joint socket. Immediately it is not possible to judge whether the femoral head is viable or not with the investigation available in such cases. Avascular necrosis and other changes occurred in the hip joint are not likely to be due to surgery in question conducted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. This witness was cross examined by the ld.counsel for the complainant, but even in the cross examination, this witness has stated that no hip joint replacement was done at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. However, hip joint replacement should be done at another hospital after preserving and keeping in view the age and condition of the patient. He categorically stated that the surgery performed at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital was necessary and technically correct. Even the complainant did not cross examine Dr.H.S.Sohal, Professor and Head, Department of Orthopedics, Government Medical College, Amritsar, who has  categorically stated that there is no deficiency or medical negligence in treatment of the complainant at Hargun Hospital, Amritsar i.e.Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. The entire above discussion proves that no hip joint replacement surgery was done at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital as alleged by the complainant, rather at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital, every effort was made to protect the original/ natural hip joint of the patient with fracture of acetabulum with fixation of R.C.Plate and screws and open reduction and internal fixation of centrally dislocated right hip joint was done, rather the doctor who performed hip joint replacement surgery at Dr.Hardas Singh Orthopaedic Hospital & Super Speciality Research Centre, 882, Circular Road, Amritsar i.e. Dr.Hardas Singh Sandhu has  categorically stated that keeping in view the age of the patient, who was 41 years old, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have  operated and conducted the surgery which was  absolutely  necessary and was technically correct. Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital had explained to the patient that she might require replacement of hip joint due to delayed avascular necrosis of the hip joint, which is a known complication of the type of injury, she suffered in the accident, but she did not approach Opposite Party No.1-hospital after that advice given by Opposite Party No.2 to the patient at Opposite Party No.1-hospital, rather she approached another hospital for the said surgery. So, in view of the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove on record any medical negligence or deficiency in the treatment of the complainant by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 at Opposite Party No.1-hospital.
12. Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 29-09-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                                    (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                  Member