SRI MOHAN vs SUKHPAL SINGH

-PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the complainant Mr. Sukhpal Singh, sustained a fracture of leg femur on 17. 10. 1999, for which he approached the petitioner Dr. Shri Mohan of Paras Nursing Home for treatment. The complainant/respondent remained hospitalised from 17. 10. 1999 to 29. 10. 1999. When he was relieved, with advice to be kept under traction at the residence for 12 weeks. The petitioner for this purpose went to the residence of the complainant and traction was given. When after completion of the period of traction, the complainant came to the nursing home, x-ray was taken and he was told that the bones have united properly. He was advised to do some exercises. The complainant remained under treatment of petitioner till 10. 4. 2000 when he felt that the leg has been shortened and there is constant pain. Despite assurances of the petitioner to the contrary, when pain was not going, the complainant approached another specialist namely, Dr. Arvind Sharan on 21. 4. 2000. It was for the first time that Dr. Sharan observed that his leg has shortened by one inch and leg is united with wrong angle. With this report when the complainant approached the petitioner, Doctor again on 29. 4. 2000, the petitioner told him that leg is shortened by 1/2 inch, he will have to use a shoe of high heel. Not being satisfied, the complainant consulted Dr. Himanshu and Dr. U. C. Jain of Saharanpur on 7. 8. 2000 and again Dr. S. B. Gupta of Meerut, who told him that it is a case of ''mal-united'' of bones on account of improper treatment given by petitioner before us. It is in these circumstances, that a complaint was filed before the District Forum, alleging medical negligence who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation, Rs. 15,000 for mental and physical agony and Rs. 5,000 as costs within a period of one month failing which it was to carry interest @ 12% p. a. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition before us. We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Basic facts are not in dispute, hence are not being reproduced. The only plea taken before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the lower Fora were wrong in arriving at the conclusion that surgery should have been done. It is the case of the petitioner that when there were two alternatives, i. e. , surgery or traction and if the petitioner adopted traction as the mode of the treatment, especially, in view of the fact, that the complainant had refused surgery, then he cannot be faulted for not doing surgery on the complainant. It was also his case that the bone had united at the right place but it bent subsequently as the respondent failed to take necessary precautions as advised by the petitioner. On the other hand learned Counsel for the complainant supported the order passed by the District Forum and State Commission.

When we see the record, it is amazing that a Doctor who is running a nursing home write on a plain sheet of paper with no heading (appearing at page 25 of the paper book), "adv. surgery but refused". A perusal of this page shows lot of overwriting of the dates and lengths. In our view, as rightly held by the District Forum, we are in no position to accept this document as genuine since this is a question of fact and has been accepted by both the lower Fora to be latter addition; we do not wish to re-open this question at revision stage.

WHAT gauls us more is, that, indisputably the complainant was under treatment of the petitioner from 17. 10. 1999 till 10th April, 2000 but we are amazed that till this date there is not even a remote reference to shortening of his leg by 1/2 or one inch. This fact is noted by the petitioner for the first time on 29. 4. 2000 after shortening of leg has been noted by Saharan Nursing Home on 21. 4. 2000. For about four months there was a continued and unbecoming effort on the part of the petitioner to keep the factum of shortening of one leg under wraps. It could be that he did not notice which would be height of in competence, or he did not went to reveal it which would be called violation of medic ethics. In our view, this appears to be a clear clever and an unbecoming effort on the part of the petitioner to conceal the fact of one leg getting shortened. This alone in our view would suffice to hold the petitioner guilty of medical negligence as well as violating professional ethics. An effort is made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Doctors who had given certificate other than the petitioner has not been examined. In our view, that was not necessary for the simple reason that till 10. 4. 2000, the patient was under the exclusive treatment of the petitioner and he does not notice shortening of leg whereas on 21. 4. 2000, when he goes to Saharan Nursing Home they notice immediately that there is shortening of leg by 1 inch. In our view, the explanation advanced by the petitioner, not supported by any material on record, that the bone had united at the right place but it bent ''subsequently'' as the respondent failed to take the necessary precautions. The question is ''subsequently'' when? It is complete professional failure on the part of the petitioner when he failed to notice the shortening of the leg and advising proper line of treatment in this regard. We refrain from passing any harsh judgment on the intellectual and professional integrity and competence of the petitioner.

A point is also made before us that if the petitioner was advised a subequent surgery and he has not undergone surgery that should be held against them. In our view, this particular plea does not stand our scrutiny, as it has nothing to do with the merits of the case one way or the other. As per material on record, the petitioner himself has noted on 29. 4. 2000 (appearing at page 36 of the paper book) that the leg has shortened by inch. We are dealing with the case of medical negligence and there is concurrent finding of the fact returned by both the lower Fora relating to medical negligence on the part of the petitioner. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

AS per our order dated 1. 8. 2003, the amount was to be deposited with the Registry of this Commission. If this has been done then this amount to be given along with accrued interest, if not already drawn by the respondent/complainant.

THIS revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. R. P. disposed of.