Suraj Singh vs MANOJ KANKANEY

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.3.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jhansi, in Complaint Case No. 416 of 1998. It may further be mentioned that by minority, the President of the learned Forum has also taken the same view of dismissing the complaint but has ordered for payment of cost of Rs. 400/- by the complainant to the opposite party. The facts of the case stated in brief are as follows :

THE complainant received a fracture in the shaft radius of left hand in an accident on 22.10.1997. He consulted Dr. Manoj Kankaney. He plastered the entire hand from palm to shoulder. According to the complainant, the fingers got stiffed and there was no movement of the fingers due to plaster. THE opposite party was confronted with this position who consoled that every thing will be alright when the plaster is removed. It is further alleged by the complainant that when the plaster was removed on 23.12.1997, the complainant felt severe pain in moving the hand. THE opposite party advised that everything will become normal after some time. According to the complainant, he consulted another Dr. V.V. Ray on 20.1.1998 who suggested for an operation on which the complainant spent Rs. 15,000/-. In the opinion of Dr. Ray, plaster was done without setting the broken bones in their place. He also opined that the entire hand need not have been put under plaster. THE complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/-. The opposite party in its written statement took the plea that after the plaster, fingers and hand were in normal position and the plaster was put upto of the arm. As the complainant has not taken care of the plaster, it was found on 23.12.1997 when the complainant came for the removal of the plaster that the entire plaster was broken on account of which bones did not unite. According to the doctor, he was not guilty of any negligence.

Learned District Consumer Forum considered the matter and came to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the doctor and hence it dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED against this judgment and order, the appellant has come in the appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order of the learned Forum. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

THE President of the learned District Consumer Forum has dealt the case in detail and gave cogent reasons as mentioned in his order that there is no certificate or opinion of Dr. V.V. Ray to the effect that it was due to entire hand being put under plaster the bones do not unite. It has been further mentioned that opinion of some other doctors have been placed on record but names of those doctors have not been mentioned in the complaint. Moreover the opinion of those doctors has not been filed by the complainant. As a matter of fact, a certificate was issued by Dr. Manoj Kankaney, the opposite party, to the complainant which mentioned that when the complainant came for removal of the plaster, it was found to be totally broken and the complainant was advised for operation in order to give joint to the bones. Thus this certificate clearly goes to show that it was the negligence of the complainant on account of which the bones did not unite. THE complainant should have taken care to preserve the plaster in the form in which it was placed initially by the doctor. Thus the evidence on records shows that the doctor was not negligent in any manner and the complainant himself was negligent. In view of what has been stated above the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Jhansi, of dismissing the complaint was perfectly justified and requires no interference. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. However, the respective parties shall bear the cost of both the suit as well as the appeal. Let copies be issued as per rules. Appeal dismissed.