SARDOOL SINGH vs MUNI LAL CHOPRA

THIS appeal is by Sardool Singh, the complainant, challenging order of District Forum, Amritsar dated September 24, 1996, dismissing the complaint with costs of Rs. l,000/-.The complaint was filed against Muni Lal Chopra Memorial Hospital, Amritsar and Dr. Rakesh Madan, Orthopaedic Surgeon of the aforesaid Hospital. Different amounts under different heads were claimed on account of loss suffered due to negligent act of Dr. Rakesh Madan in performing operation and fixing plates in his legs which were of inferior quality and had broken.

SARDOOL Singh suffered injuries in an accident, which took place on January 18,1993 at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. and in the mid night, he was brought to the Hospital of the opposite parties. Dr. Madan attended on him and after examination observed fractures in both the legs of SARDOOL Singh on January 19, 1993. The right leg was operated on that clay and a plate was fixed and Bone grafting was also done. Subsequently, on January 23, 1993, left leg was likewise operated, plate fixed and grafting done. On February 3,1993, he was discharged as indoor patient. Subsequently on x-ray, it was observed, on August 9,1993 in the Government Hospital that plates in one of the legs were broken. Thus, attributing negligence to Dr. Madan, claim was made before the District Forum giving details of the expenses incurred. The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing separate replies, denying the allegations of the complainant in the matter of performing operations negligently. Proper treatment was given in performing the two operations which were successful. The complainant was advised rest at the time of discharge for three months to avoid putting pressure on the weak legs, which were operated. It was denied that the plates fixed were of inferior quality or were negligently fixed. Breaking of the plate was stated to be on account of negligence of the complainant himself, who must have put some pressure on the leg. Both the parties produced their affidavits. The District Forum dismissed the complaint as stated above. Learned Counsel for the complainant appellant argued that the steel plate fixed in ordinary course of nature was not required to be broken and the very fact that it did break, a presumption should be drawn either that it was of inferior quality or it was negligently fixed in the leg of the complainant. There is no force in this contention. In the case of medical negligence attributed to the doctors, heavy burden is cast upon the complainant to prove it. The Supreme Court has laid down the apparent case of medical negligence and others which are required to be proved by expert evidence in para 37 of the judgment in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) as under : "It is no doubt true that sometimes complicated questions requiring recording of evidence of experts may arise in a complaint about deficiency in service based on the ground of negligence in rendering medical service by a medical practitioner; but this would not be so in all the complaints about deficiency in rendering services by a medical practitioner. There may be cases which do not raise such complicated questions and the deficiency in service may be due to obvious faults which can be easily established such as removal of the wrong limb or the performance of an operation on the wrong patient or giving injection of a drug to which the patient is allergic without looking into the out-patient card containing the warning (as in Chin Keow v. Government of Malaysia, 1967 ACJ 379 (PC England) or use of wrong gas during the course of an anaesthetic or leaving inside the patient swabs or other items of operating equipment after surgery. One often reads about such incidents in the newspapers. The issues arising in the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the procedure that is being followed by Consumer Disputes Red ressal Agencies and there is no reason why complaints regarding deficiency in service in such cases should not be adjudicated by the Agencies under the Act. In complaints involving complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the complainant can be asked to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief."

The present is not a case of apparent negligence on the part of the surgeon in conducting the operation. As to whether the plate used was of inferior quality, the complainant was required to lead expert evidence on that. Without any test, it could not be held that such a plate was of inferior quality. The other type of medical negligence cases are those where expert opinion is required to be produced to prove it. In the present case, the complainant has not produced any expert witness to prove that there was any fault in the performance of the operations. Fixation of die bones by using plates is one of the recognised modes of treatment in the case of fracture of die bones. If the opposite party has adopted the aforesaid method, though subsequently plate had broken, negligence cannot be attributed to the doctor. This is not a case where the wounds of the operation were infected that any other complication arose. Breaking of the plate after about six months of their placing cannot be attributed towards negligent act of the doctor in performing the operation. The District Forum rightly held that the complainant had failed to prove his case.

FOR the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.