O R D E R

27.04.2017

S.K.Sinha, President

                    The impugned order directs payment of  compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- within a period of two months, failing which interest @ 9% shall be payable.

            The complainant alleges that the opposite party doctor committed medical negligence  and deficiency in service while operating abdomen of the complainant on 20.02.2004 as complainant notice leakage of  Urine. The complaint was made  to doctor  for the above but she was discharged from the hospital of the opposite party on 28.02.2004 in the same position. The complainant consulted Dr. K.K. Kanth  at Patna who performed second operation  and  leakage of Urine was stopped. The complainant spent of Rs. 25,000/- in this second operation. The opposite party doctor contested  the matter filed written statement denying the claims supported by affidavit. It was stated that the opposite party is well qualified doctor  and performed the operation properly without any negligence. It was further stated that the complainant did not make any complaint to the doctor till 28.02.2004 when she was discharge from his qualified. It was further stated that while discharging 5 prohibition were not advised including prohibition from sexual intercourse. It is further stated that the complainant herself admitted before him on 01.03.2004 when she vested his hospital told that her husband  forcibly had sexual intercourse with her in the night on 28.02.2004. The trouble of the complainant was due to the above reason. This apart stand was taken  that the doctor did not charge any fee for the operation.

                   The complainant in support of the complaint filed her affidavit as also prescription of the doctor was she consulted the opposite party, also produced  the witness in evidence who were cross- examined on behalf of the complainant.

                   Written notes of argument is filed on behalf of the appellant. Respondent did not appear despite registered notice.

                   We have considered the case of the parties in the light of the pleadings as also materials on record. It is well settled that  in order to hold medical negligence  and deficiency in service in the treatment it has to be established by reliable evidence/material that what was required to be done by treating doctor was not done what was done  was not required as per the laid down medical procedure in context of the treatment in question. We do not find any such materials on record. Having found as above we do not deem it necessary to deal the other objection regarding non payment of fee to the doctor or the case is time barred.

                   The District Forum while allowing the compensation did not consider the cardinal principle of law for holding medical negligence as indicated above.

                   For the reasons and discussions above. We are unable to sustain  the order under appeal. It is thus set aside.

                   In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The requisite amount deposited by the appellant be released in his favour.

      Renu Sinha                        ( Upendra Jha )                                 S.K.Sinha

      Member(F)                          Member(M).                                    President

Agam