G. SARANGAPANI vs G. BHARAT

THE opposite party in C.D. No: 251 of 1990, Dr. G. Sarangapani, Orthopedician, Baktavastala Nursing Home, Santhapeta, Ongole is the appellant. THE respondent herein filed a complaint stating that on account of the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite party, he suffered permanent physical disability.

THE case of the complainant was that on 30-1-1990 he sustained an injury on his left fore-hand due to fall. When he went to the opposite party, he admitted him and on his advice an X-ray was taken. THE opposite party after examining the applicant with the aid of X-ray negligently stated that it was a simple crack and so saying applied bandage and advised the complainant to do some exercises. But the treatment suggested by the opposite party did not in any way heel the fracture. THE complainant underwent acute pain and suffering even when moving his hand. Subsequently, he was admitted in Nalluri Nursing Home, where he got his left hand operated immediately on 7.2.1990. According to the complainant, the said Doctor informed him that a small ligament of the bone was separated and pierced into the left forearm joint and due to lapse of time, there was growth of tissues around the said fracture bone involving blood vessels which created the problem. This was the reason, according to the complainant, for deficiency of service rendered by the Doctor. A counter was filed stating that the complainant went to the opposite party on 30.1.1990 with an injury to his left elbow and the opposite party asked the complainant to get the elbow X-rayed. The complainant brought the X-ray film to the opposite party after some time and on seeing the X-ray, the opposite party said that there was a fracture and advised the petitioner to undergo surgery soon. But, according to the opposite party, the complainant said that he would consult his parents and return after some time, but did not turn up until 14-2-1990. He admits that he put posterior slab to immobilise the movement of the arm, as he advised operation. But the complainant went to the opposite party on 14-2-1990 with swelling of the left elbow. The opposite party removed the posterior slab and advised the complainant to undergo surgery immediately, since it was already late. According to the opposite party, thereafter the complainant did not visit him.

Before the District Forum, no oral evidence was adduced by both the parties. On behalf of the complainant, no documents were filed. On behalf of the opposite party, the prescription, investigations, diagnosis, treatment and follow up card of the respondent''s Nursing Home, the photo copy of the letter of Ashok Bhasin, Advocate of Delhi; and a photo copy of the article dated 16-6-1992 published by Dr. M.S. Venkataraman and an article published in page-10 of Udayam news a daily dated 31-7-1992, were filed.

THE District Forum came to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/-with interest. In this appeal, it is contended by the Counsel for the opposite party that the complainant visited on 30-1-1990 and after X-ray, the opposite party immobilised the arm and advised him to undergo operation immediately. But the complainant only came back to him on 14.2.1990. Even then, after removing the bandage, the Doctor advised him to undergo operation, but the complainant left the hospital. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no evidence on behalf of the complainant establishing that there is any deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite party. But it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent that although the copies of documents were served on the other side, but the Counsel appearing for the complainant did not produce the same before the District Forum. He filed copies of those documents before us. He, therefore, submitted that an opportunity may be given to his client to file these documents before the District Forum and adduce oral evidence, if necessary. We consider having regard to the circumstances, although copies of documents were served on the other side, but for some reason or other, the same were not filed before the District Forum and an opportunity must be given to both the parties to adduce both the oral and documentary evidence. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the District Forum and remit the matter to the District Forum for disposal of the case, according to law, after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce any oral and documentary evidence by them.

DURING the pendency of the appeal there was a direction to deposit Rs. 5,000/- and there was a further direction to furnish a bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- pending disposal of the consumer dispute appeal. The deposit of Rs. 5,000/- made and the bank guarantee given shall be continued pending disposal of complaint. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Ordered accordingly.