Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. The complainant’s daughter met with an accident on 10.01.2007 and was immediately brought to the Poly Clinic run by the Opposite party. It is the case of the complainant that the Opposite party told him that there is an injury to the bone and applied plaster of paris casting advising the girl not to move the leg for 3 weeks. The complainant says that he took his daughter the very next day to Kamakshi Hospital where the Orthopaedic Surgeon examined the girl and said that there was no injury to the bone but there is blood clot. The girl was admitted to the hospital given appropriate treatment and discharged after 3 days. The complainant has alleged that the Opposite party misled them about the nature of injury whereas he could have directed them to an Orthopaedic Surgeon. The complainant further says that he was cheated by the Opposite party, he has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.75,000/-.<br /> 2. The Opposite party in his version has denied that he told the complainant that his daughter had suffered a fracture in the leg , he says his annex servicemen having served Indian Navy as a Surgeon. On the incident in alleged by the complainant he says that there was a swelling and tenderness on the right knee of the girl. Hence, suspected fracture. On observing the X-ray he found that there was soft tissue swelling. Suspecting that it may abscue airline fracture and keeping in view, the patient’s tender age, he decided to immobilize the R.T. knee joint by encasing the knee with plaster of paris casting. He further says that he advised the complainant to meet the Orthopaedic Surgeon and fixed an appointment with the visiting Orthopaedic Surgeon, but the complainant did not turn up. He has justified putting plaster of paris casting stating that it was only a first aid treatment before further treatment from the Orthopaedic Surgeon.<br /> 3. From the above contentions, the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> I. Whether the complainant proves that the Opposite party misleading as to the nature of injury to his daughter?<br /> II. Whether the complainant further proves that by applying plaster of paris casting, the Opposite party gave wrong treatment thereby causing deficiency in service.<br /> III. What relief or order? <br /> 4. We findings are as under:-<br /> Point No.I : In the negative<br /> Point No.II : In the negative<br /> Point No.III : As per final order <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. Points I & II:- For the sake of convenience both points have been taken up for discussion together. It is not in dispute that the complainant’s daughter met with an accident and rushed to the Poly Clinic run by the Opposite party. It is also not in dispute that the Opposite party ordered an X-ray and applied plaster of paris casting to the girl’s leg. The complainant apparently has taken the daughter to Kamakshi hospital where she was examined by an Orthopaedic Surgeon who diagnose her condition as “contusion over front of thigh lower 1 1/3rd with hemotoma no bone injury”. It is therefore obvious that the girl suffered no fracture. Whereas the complainant has alleged that the Opposite party misled him that there was a fracture, the Opposite party says that he applied plaster of paris casting only to immobilize her leg and was meant to be a first aid. There is no evidence as to the diagnosis made by the Opposite party except a receipt of Rs.818/-. Though, this is a case of medical negligence, the complainant has not led any evidence either to the effect that the Opposite party misled him as to the nature of injury or to the effect that applying plaster of paris casting was unnecessary in a case like this. The Opposite party on his part has not even given a diagnosis as to the nature of injury suffered by the girl. The complainant has not adduced any expert evidence to prove that plaster of paris casting should not have been applied to his daughter since there was no fracture. The evidence of the Orthopaedic surgeon who treated the girl at Kamakshi hospital was very vital to the case of the complainant. Further the complainant at the time of oral evidence came up with a version that it was not the Opposite party who treated the daughter, but his brother who treated her. Under these circumstances, the complaint fails and therefore we answer both the points in the negative and proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs. <br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />