Ram Gopal Yadav vs Pushkar Anand

THE facts in brief are that the complainant, Shri Ram Gopal Yadav, a Pradhan of Gram Sabha Ruripura, ( herein referred as "Patient") met with a road accident on 3.7.1999 and suffered injuries to the left leg. He was admitted in District Hospital, Hamirpur at 5.30 p.m. The duty doctor, Dr. R. S. Gupta attended and sent the information to OP No 1/Dr. P. N. Arya, who came after two hours. OP 1 referred the complainant to OP 2. The complainant alleged that, the OPs did not treat him carefully and due to negligence, he lost his left leg. Therefore, he filed a complaint bearing No. 12 of 2000 before the District Forum, Hamirpur.

THE District Forum, Hamirpur dismissed the complaint on the basis that services of Government doctors are free of cost, which are not within the definition of Section 2(i)((o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Subsequently, the complainant preferred First appeal No. 538 of 2007 before the Uttar Pradesh State Commission, Lucknow, which was also dismissed on 7.8.2014. Hence, aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the complainant filed this revision petition.

THERE is delay of 18 days in filing this revision petition. We condone this short delay after perusing the application for condonation of delay. At the admission stage, the Petitioner/Complainant appeared in person and submitted his written arguments. The petitioner in his written arguments submitted that he was the Pradhan of his village and was having inimical relation with some villagers, so they colluded with the OP and got his left leg amputated, making him physically handicap. The OP 1, demanded money illegally and on not paying the same, applied loose bandages on the left leg of the petitioner and OP - 2 who in conspiracy with the enemies of the petitioner got forged signature of one Ram Prakash on operation papers and amputated the left leg of the petitioner.

WE have perused the evidence and orders of both the fora below and medical record of Government Hospital, Hamirpur. It is clearly evident that the complainant was admitted at 5.30 p.m. in the District Hospital, in a state of shock, having sustained injuries with severe bleeding. The record revealed that, the doctor advised for three units of blood, started oxygen as on inhalation necessary, proper IV medication and reference was made to Orthopedic Surgeon. To stop the bleeding, femoral artery was ligated. The surgical toileting and debridement of wound was performed and pre anesthetic check -up by Anesthetist, was performed and the prognosis was also explained to the persons accompanied the patient/complainant. ''O'' positive blood was transfused at 6.45 p.m. As per medical records, the surgical intervention took place, after proper investigation with the consent of Mr. Ram Prakash, who was present along with the patient, as it was an emergent situation. Therefore, the OP -1 took decision and mode of operation after entire clinical assessment. It was noted that the injuries were crush injuries, extensively involving the left middle of thigh, up to foot. All the anatomical structures like bone, muscles, tenders and the blood vessels were badly crushed with fresh bleeding. Therefore, the limb of patient was impossible to be saved.

IT is well settled law that in the case of medical negligence, initial burden to prove medical negligence lies on the complainant. Mere averments in the complaint, are not evidence. Just a bald statement cannot be accepted as held by Hon''ble Supreme court in the following cases: C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.) MS.(Ortho) Vs. S. Ramanujam, 2009 7 SCC 130 Nizam Institute of Medical Science Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors.,2009 3 CPR 81 Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2005 3 CPR 70 It is also well settled law as observed by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Kusum Sharma and Others vs. Batra Hospital, 2010 1 CPJ 29 that "negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession. Medical practitioner would be liable only when his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field."

THEREFORE , we are of considered view that the OP had not committed any negligence. His decision for amputation was correct; it was in the interest of saving the life of patient. As the patient was in a state of shock, therefore, the consent was taken from the relatives/well -wishers, who accompanied the patient. The complainant also filed several newspaper articles to show that the doctors at government hospital were negligent, indulged in unethical practices and with pending criminal inquiries. In our opinion, those documents do not clap any evidentiary importance in this revision petition.

THERE is no merit in this revision petition, and the same is hereby dismissed, at admission stage.