Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 03/02/2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint No.167/2001.
2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summerised as under :-
The appellant/complainant-Shri Prakash Gangadhar Jadhav, photographer by profession met with an accident on 10/11/1999 and suffered spinal injury leading to total sensory loss of limbs and other problems. He was admitted in the hospital of opponent No.1. As per contention of the complainant, he was recovering from injury and he himself took discharge from the hospital on 24/11/1999. Again he visited opponent No.2 a Neuro Surgeon on 25/11/1999. He was advised to undergo immediate surgery. He alleged that opponent No.2 had guaranteed him recovery within 15 days. He contended that he believed opponent No.2 and got admitted on 25/11/1999. Opponent No.2 operated him on 26/11/1999. However, instead of improvement, his sensory loss was aggravated and he was not able to use upper limbs and could not move lower limbs without support. He suffered from spasm. He further alleged that because of prolonged catherisation, he suffered from urinary problem, impotency and also from chronic constipation. He alleged that this was because of not proper post-operative care, attention, medical services. He was discharged from hospital on 05/02/2000. Thereafter, he continued to visit O.P.D. of opponent Nos.2&3. He alleged that because of dereliction of duties on the part of opponent Nos.2&3 he has suffered tremendous loss and injury on account of deprivation, harassment, mental agony and loss of professional practice. He filed consumer complaint praying an amount of `3,50,000/- from opponent Nos.2&3 and refund of `81,000/-, `30,000/- and `21,000/- for medical expenses.
3. Opponent Nos.2&3 contested the complaint filed by appellant/complainant. Opponent Nos.2&3 had filed joint written version contending that the complainant/appellant was transferred to opponent Nos.2&3 and accordingly, he was admitted on 25/11/1999. They have contended that M.R.I. report of the appellant/complainant dated 11/11/1999 shows that there was loss of normal cervical lordosis and presence of bony canal stenosis. The C4 and C5 disc revealed diffused disc bulge just indenting the cord. The C5 and C6 disc revealed diffused disc bulge right Para-central herniation compressing the cord. The C6 and C7 disc revealed diffused disc bulge with posterocentral and bilateral Para-central herniation compressing the cord. Presence of posterior osteophyte as well as uncovertebral arthropathy was noted at these levels. The cord revealed abnormal hyper-intense signal on T2 WI at C5, C6 and C7 levels indicating edema/contusion. They further contended that in order to arrest further damage, surgery was necessary. Accordingly, they carried out surgery. When he was discharged there was 30% recovery. They therefore, prayed that the consumer complaint may please be dismissed.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum after going through the evidence adduced by both the parties dismissed the consumer complaint vide order dated 03/02/2005. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum while dismissing the complaint observed that there are several text and processes to arrive at a decision that whether operation is necessary has to be decided by the surgeon. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.
5. The matter was on the sine-die list. The matter was put up before us on 18/08/2011. We directed the office to issue notice to the appellant. Accordingly, notice was sent to the appellant on 01/10/2011. Today, both the parties remained absent. Since this appeal is an old one, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
6. The complaint filed by the complainant/appellant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is the case of medical negligence. In a medical negligence case, burden of proof lies on the complainant. The facts relied by the complainant/appellant does not show and could not establish that the decision of surgery taken by opponent No.2 was wrong and hence, decision of the surgery could not be faulted. The complainant/appellant failed to establish his case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. We have gone through the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just and proper. We do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 18th October 2011.
