By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant had undergone treatment from the Opposite Party for the contusion sustained in a fall. The Opposite Party advised the Complainant that the right elbow of the Complainant is having dislocation and the Complainant was treated for the same. The Opposite Party is in the avocation of indigenous method of treatment. When the treatment could not make any relief to the Complainant expert opinion were sought by the Complainant from the Alopathic doctors. It was known at this stage that the advice of dislocation of the right elbow by the Opposite Party was incorrect and the treatments caused pain and sufferings to the Complainant instead of relief. The Complainant

had to give Rs.618/- to the Opposite Party as the treatment charge, the accident was occurred on 18.9.2007. The error in judgment by the Opposite Party and the treatment followed in mistake in diagnosing the injury caused heavy loss to the Complainant. There may be an order directing Opposite Party to:-

1. Pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant on the deficiency of service on their part.

2. Pay the cost of litigation.

    

2. The Opposite Party filed version. The contention of the Opposite Party in brief is as follows: The allegation of the Complainant that the Opposite Party treated the Complainant for dislocation and there was no relief for the pain and discomforts of the Complainant are false. The Opposite Party treated the Complainant and the treatments was also effective. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party for the injury sustained, in course of treatments and afterwards the Opposite Party had not shown any dissatisfaction. The Opposite Party is not aware of any advice sought by the Complainant from any other method of treatments. In service rendered by the Opposite Party it is not motivated with any other interest and to earn money. The Opposite Party is involved in this method of treatments for years. The concern of the Opposite Party is having its own reputation gained from years of treatments. The complaint is ill-motivated and it Is nothing but to tarnish the reputation of the Opposite Party, the Complainant does not deserve for any of the reliefs as prayed in the complaint. The Complainant is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.

3. The points in consideration are.

1. Whether the treatments of the Opposite Party amount to deficiency in service?

2. Relief and costs.

    

4. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Exts.A1 to A10 are the documents marked for the Complainant. The Opposite Party filed proof affidavit interaliacontenting the allegation of the Complainant. The Exts.B1 to B5 are the documents produced for the Opposite Party. The Complainant and the Opposite Party have given oral testimony in this case.

5. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party treated the Complainant, including the massaging for the injury, sustained in the right elbow. The Complainant had contusion in the right elbow caused on fall. The treatments of the Opposite Party was for dislocation of the bone. The Complainant could realize later that the treatments of the Opposite Party was resulted due to an error in judgment instead for a contusion, the Opposite Party gave the treatments for dislocation of the bone. When the pain was not relived in the course of treatments, expert opinion was sought by the Complainant from the Allopathic doctors. The careless and negligent treatments, given by the Opposite Party, caused pain and sufferings to the Complainant.

6. Ext. A4 is the certificate issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant dated 14.11.2007. It amplifies that the patient was under treatments from 16.10.2007 to 8.11.2007 for the dislocation of the right elbow. Ext.A5 is the application in the revers side of the application form No.46. In the oral testimony of the Complainant it is admitted that the medical certificate is obtained from the Opposite Party under pretext that the form is to be filled up by the treated person for the purpose of getting monetary aid from building and other construction workers welfare board. The Complainant had undergone treatment under one doctor Sachin who was examined as PW2 . The date of X-ray is 18.9.2007 and according to

this doctor in the injured region there is no dislocation. An another doctor who treated the Complainant is doctor Hakkim and it was on 10.12.2007. Ext.A6 is the certificate issued to the Complainant but in that the date of injury is not noted. The issuance of certificate by the Opposite Party to the Complainant was after one month and 26 days from the date of injury. The case of the Complainant is that at the time of issuance of the certificate by the Opposite Party the Complainant was free from any dislocation. But it does not warrant the Complainant that he had not undergone any injury which resulted a dislocation. In the laps of one month even if the dislocation is there it can be kept in possession according to the opinion of the expert. The immobilization of the limb for two weeks can change the normal position of the limb according to doctor Hakkim. The Opposite Party is a traditional medical practitioner adopted indigenous method of treatment. The Complainant cannot establish his case in that aspect that the treatments given by the Opposite Party lead to deflation in normal position of the organ. In the light of discussion above, we find that the Opposite Parties treatment to the Complainant did not cause any deficit in service and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.2:- The treatment of the Opposite Party to the Complainant not comprises any deficiency in service, as a result the detail discussion of point No.2 is not necessary.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed, no order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th April 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I : Sd/-

MEMBER- II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Nazeer, Complainant.

PW2. Dr. Sachin Asst. Surgeon, C.H.C Kalpetta.

PW3. Hakkeem N.K Asst. Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Vythiri.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1 P.M. Perachakkutty Vaidyam.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Prescription

A2. X-ray.

A3. Cash Bill dt:18.09.2007.

A4. Certificate dt:14.11.2007.

A5. Medical Certificate dt:14.11.2007.

A6.Series( 2 Page) Prescription.

A7.Series (9 numbers) Receipts.

A8. (4 numbers) Bills.

A9. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:17.11.2007

A10. Acknowledgement

Exhibits for Opposite Party:

B1. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:20.12.2007.

B2. True copy of License dt:26.03.82.

B3. True copy of Receipt. dt:16.02.09.

B4. Copy of Government Order. dt:10.11.2008

B5. True Copy of Membership Certificate.