SATYAPAL JAIN vs Mohan

-THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 8. 1. 2007 passed in the CCA No. 145/2004 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sagar (hereinafter Forum) whereby the appellant has been held to be partly responsible for negligence and deficiency in the treatment of the respondent and directed to pay to the respondent No. 1 a total sum of Rs. 7,000 as damages, reimbursement of expenditure on additional treatment and cost.

THE facts in brief are that the complainant (respondent No. 1 here) had approached the opposite party (appellant here) for treatment of fracture of his left hand on 26. 12. 2003 who fixed the bone and plastered it. After 5 weeks when the plaster was cut on 1. 2. 2004, the complainant had pain in his hand which persisted beyond 15 days and as a result he had to go to Nurajahan Siraj Ahmed Memorial Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Jabalpur, where his ailment was diagnosed as malunited fracture L/e radius ellna and he had to undergo another operation. This cost him about Rs. 25,000 besides suffering pain for another 45 days. Charging the opposite party with negligence during earlier treatment, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking damages and additional expenditure he had to incur in his treatment at Jabalpur, which was decided as mentioned above. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the complainant had earlier taken treatment in District Hospital, Sagar about 10 days back and came to the appellant on 26. 12. 2003 complaining that the plaster done by the District Hospital is too tight and is causing pain. Since he brought with him the X-ray report the appellant cut the plaster, which was too tight, and after fixing the bone replastered it. He asked the complainant to come back with fresh x-ray report within a week. Since he did not come back with the x-ray and do the exercise advised by the appellant, the latter cannot be charged with any negligence or deficiency in service. Besides he contended that despite best care non-union or mal-union at times takes place and the appellant cannot be held responsible for the same.

We have gone through the record of the Forum very carefully. Although the appellant states that the complainant had earlier gone to the District Hospital, Sagar where bone setting and plastering had been done about 10 days back, he did not make any mention about it in his prescription slip (Annexure C-2) original of which is filed at page 67 in Forum''s file. That the complainant had brought x-ray with him and that after seeing it the original plaster was cut and replastering done is also not mentioned therein. In fact nothing has been mentioned about the clinical condition. There is overwriting on an earlier date written to suggest that the complainant had been called on 2. 1. 2004. But there is no mention why or whether at all the complainant was called on 2. 1. 2004 and if so with x-ray. When his attention was drawn to these lacunae the appellant stated that he had orally asked the complainant to come with x-ray and given him a separate slip for the same. Earlier in his reply before the Forum, he says he agrees with para 3 of the complainant that the latter came to him on 2. 1. 2004. But nowhere in the said para 3, the complainant says that after plastering he came to the opposite party on 2. 1. 2004. Why he made such a false assertion is best known to him. It appears he is trying to obfuscate the evidence to say that he had asked the complainant to come with X-ray on 2. 1. 2004 and since the latter did not come with x-ray, negligence is on the part of the complainant and not his.

NORMALLY every direction is clearly written on the prescription slip, which is given to the patient. It appears that to cover up these loopholes, photocopy of another prescription slip was filed as Annexure N-1 and it was argued that it was internally maintained in the hospital. Since it contains history of the ailment, advice to the patient etc. , it should have been given to the complainant. But what was in fact given to the complainant is what has been filed as Annexure C-2. No doctor maintains such a record internally in his office which in fact is the copy/duplicate of the prescription slip. It is obviously prepared as an after thought to cover the omission and commission mentioned above. This is proof enough of negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had to undergo another operation in a hospital at Jabalpur and had to suffer monetary expenditure besides physical pain. It could have been avoided if the initial treatment was done carefully and competently which in other words would mean, after due examination and tests. Latest x-ray report in a case of fracture like this had to be necessarily and freshly obtained and seen before doing the replastering. Obviously, the appellant defaulted with regard to this important aspect.

FOR the above reasons, we find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is confirmed and appeal is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.