State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunny vs Dr.Sharad Jain on 17 February, 2026
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
APPEAL NO. 2266/2013
Sunny
S/o Sanjay Sharma
Through Natural Guardian Father
Sanjay S/o Shyamlal Sharma
R/o Laxmi Nagar, Sanjeet Naka
Mandsour (M.P.). ... Appellant
VERSUS.
1. Dr. Sharad Jain
Orthopedic Specialist
R/o Shubham Hospital
Behind Dashpur Kunj
Mandsour (M.P.)
2. The New India Insurance Company Ltd.
Branch Office
Mandsour (M.P.) ... Respondents
BEFORE;
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
SHRI VINAY KHARE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
SHRI MUSTAFA HASAN, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARS ON BEHALF OF
SHRI RAVINDRA TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
SHRI AJMAL TIRMIZI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.
ORDER
( 17.02.2026 ) The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member.
: 2 :
This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant'), is directed against the order dated 13.9.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandsour (for short 'District Commission'), in complaint case No. 25/2012, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.
2. Case of the complainant is such that he had pain in his right leg and he therefore approached the Hospital of opposite party No.1. The complainant alleged that there was no fracture in his leg but opposite party No.1/doctor placed cast on the leg on 4.12.2010. Since the complainant was observing no relief and there was burning sensation, he again approached the opposite party No.1/doctor, who suggested for removal of cast. After cast removal boils were observed in the affected area. The complainant, thereafter, approached Dr. Alok Mehta on 11.12.2010, who informed the complainant that pus discharge is there on the site due to cast implantation. The complainant was referred to Ahmedabad, where he got admitted in Samved Orthopedic Centre on 12.12.2010. Skin grafting was done in the said Hospital and nearly Rs.2 lakhs were spent in the treatment. The complainant, therefore, approached the District : 3 : Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.1/doctor.
3. The opposite party No.1/doctor resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant had hair line fracture in his leg and therefore, cast was implanted. The complainant was not shown to him after 4.12.2010. The complainant was given certain instructions but since no care was taken on affected leg, swelling appeared. The complainant was treated as per medical norms and there has been no deficiency in service by the opposite party No.1/doctor.
4. The opposite party No.2-The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ('Insurance Company'), resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove negligence on part of the opposite party No.1/doctor. Therefore, prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
5. Heard. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the opposite party No.1/doctor placed cast on the leg of the complainant even when there was no fracture in leg and due to implantation of cast boils and blisters developed and : 4 : complainant had to undergo skin grafting at Ahmedabad. The opposite party No.1/doctor should have examined condition of the skin before implanting cast. Due to negligence of opposite party No.1/doctor, condition of leg of complainant deteriorated. Negligence of the opposite party No.1/doctor is proved on account of X-ray conducted by Dr. Alok Mehta on 11.12.2010, where he found there was no fracture but there was only soft tissue swelling of right ankle. There is adequate evidence to prove that cast was implanted by opposite party No.1/doctor, despite there being any fracture but that the District Commisson has dismissed the complaint and thus committed error. He prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1/doctor argued that the complainant had hair line fracture in his leg as per X- ray report dated 4.12.2010. The complainant was give instructions regarding immobility and rest, which were not followed and that caused complications. The complainant never came for follow-up and he himself got removed the cast and therefore, opposite party No.1/doctor was never made aware regarding condition of the complainant's leg. On : 5 : these grounds he prayed that the appeal, which is devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned order and argued that since the Insurance Company has issued professional Indemnity Policy in favour of the opposite party No.1/doctor, it can be only be held liable in case of deficiency in service or negligence committed on part of the doctor. The documents and evidence available on record do not suggest that there has been any professional negligence committed by opposite party No.1/doctor and therefore, he prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
9. The documents available on record suggest that when the complainant had shown to opposite party No.1/doctor for the first time, he was applied POP cast. The complainant has alleged that the cast was applied without there being any fracture and despite there being any diagnostic confirmation. The doctor in his prescription has mentioned 'hairline fracture of right fibula lower end'.
10. As per the complainant when he consulted Dr. Alok Mehta, who also advised X-ray, it was observed that there was no fracture and ICD of right ankle was advised. As per : 6 : complainant, radiological report dated 13.12.2010 shows that there was no evidence of any fracture.
11. The complainant alleged that due to negligent application of POP cast, which was done by opposite party No.1/doctor, he had to get admitted in Samved Orthopedic Hospital with diagnosis of skin necrosis with blisters over the lateral side of the right ankle. Consequently, debridement and skin grafting were performed.
12. We however find that there is an initial prescription of opposite party No.1/doctor, wherein there is a mention of 'Hair line fracture, right fibula'. Thereafter, there is no prescription of opposite party No.1-Doctor available in the record. The allegations of the complainant are therefore, not proved that the complainant had visited opposite party No.1-doctor subsequently as this has been categorically denied by the opposite party No.1/doctor. The complainant has also objected to an X-ray report dated 30.8.2013, stating that the same is manipulated and prepared later. We however find that the said X-ray report is in fact the X-ray report of X-ray, which was conducted on 4.12.2010, as the date is clearly : 7 : mentioned on the X-ray film, which is annexed with the report dated 30.8.2013.
13. The District Commission has held that fracture was observed by the opposite party No.1/doctor, when the complainant had approached the opposite party No.1/doctor, on the basis of which the doctor applied POP cast. The District Commission while relying on medical literature has held that it can be difficult to differentiate at times between fracture of the ankle and severe bruising. The ankle may seem mildly painful with a hint of swelling but an X-ray shows the presence of an underlying fracture. Therefore, as per X-ray report dated 13.12.2010, even if there is soft tissue swelling/sprain of ankle, the District Commission has not erred in observing that application of plaster cast is recommended for better recovery.
14. As per record, the complainant did not approach the opposite party No.1 thereafter but went to Dr. Alok Mehta and for further treatment in Ahmedabad. The District Commission has rightly observed that no evidence to question quality of POP cast and regarding the complainant's skin being extremely sensitive has been led. When the complainant did not go for follow up with the opposite party No.1, it cannot be : 8 : held that the opposite party No.1/doctor has been negligent in the instant matter. The opposite party No.1/doctor was certainly not responsible for the complications, which occurred in the instant matter.
15. The District Commission has thus committed no error while dismissing the complaint. The impugned order is hereby upheld.
16. In the result, the appeal filed by the complainant fails and is hereby dismissed.
17. No order as to costs.
(JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Mercy