This revision petition is preferred against the concurrent findings of the fora below. The fora below recorded a finding that the petitioner No.2 is a General Surgeon and yet treated the complainant for reduction of the dislocated right shoulder. There is no dispute about the fact that complainant alleged deficiency in the service of the petitioners in treating him for dislocation of the right shoulder. It was the case of the complainant that due to

erroneous treatment pertaining to the reduction of the location of the right shoulder, he suffered disability of 14%. The fora below held that x-ray was not taken after the alleged reduction and therefore, it was not possible for the petitioners to ensure whether the procedure was correctly done or not. Moreover, the petitioner No.2 is only a General Physician. He should have immediately referred the complainant to a higher centre for specialized treatment and hands of an orthopedican. It is obvious that the petitioner No.2 was not competent orthopedican as such.   It is further clear that the petitioners failed to ascertain whether the reduction process was successfully done or not, by getting the x-ray examination after completing the procedure what appears from the record is that the contention of the petitioners was not that the x-ray was not working at the relevant time. This could not be the excuse and therefore, the concurrent findings of the fora below appear to be based on proper material, in any case such concurrent finding cannot be branded as perverse or arbitrary. Needles to say in the limited exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the finding of fact cannot be disturbed. No substantial question of law is involved.

In the result the petition is dismissed in limine.