National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Baljit Singh vs Kumar Hospital & Anr. on 7 March, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1975 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 01/02/2016 in Appeal No. 319/2013 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. BALJIT SINGH S/O. SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH, R/O. VILLAGE KALYAN TEHSIL ANANDPUR SAHIB, DISTRICT-RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KUMAR HOSPITAL & ANR. THROUGH DR. RAKESH KUMAR DHAND, NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, MAIN BAZAAR, NURPUR BEDI, TEHSIL ANANDPUR SAHIB, DISTRICT-RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB 2. DR. RAKESH KUMAR DHAND, SOLE PROPRIETOR OF KUMAR HOSPITAL NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, MAIN BAZAAR, NURPUR BEDI, TEHSIL ANAND PUR SAHIB, DISTRICT-RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate with petitioner in person For the Respondent :
Dated : 07 Mar 2017 ORDER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Punjab dated 01.02.2016 in appeal no. 319 of 2013.
2. Baljeet Singh, the petitioner herein has filed the consumer complaint against the opposite parties on the allegation that on 28.01.2012 at about 2.30 p.m. the complainant sustained fracture on his right arm in an accident. The complainant was taken to the hospital of the opposite parties where he was admitted on 28.01.2012 at around 4.00 p.m.. OP No.2 conducted surgery and set the bone and fixed it with screw and plates. After the surgery, x-ray was done on 03.02.2012 and plates and screws were found to be in place. According to the complainant on 10.04.2012 he went to the hospital run by Punjab Health System Corporation because of complaint in the arm. The said corporation advised the complainant to go to PGI at Chandigarh because they did not have necessary equipment for the second surgery. According to the complainant, Op No.2 was negligent in performing surgery as a result of which the fracture did not heel. Thus, he filed consumer complaint in the District Forum.
3. Opposite party on being served with the notice resisted the complaint by filing written statement. It was alleged that surgery was done with utmost care and bone was set right with plates and screws, which fact was confirmed by the subsequent x-ray report. It was pleaded that it is possible that complainant's injury did not heal because he suffered some accident or did not follow the instructions given at the time of discharge.
4. The District Forum on consideration of evidence came to the conclusion that opposite party doctor was negligent while treating the complainant. The District Forum, therefore, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for loosening of implants fitted in the fractured arm besides Rs.5000/- as costs.
5. The opposite party being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum approached State Commission in appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order came to the conclusion that complainant has failed to establish medical negligence on the part of the opposite party doctor. The appeal was accordingly allowed, order of the District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed. The complainant has come in revision against the aforesaid order.
6. Shri Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that order of the State Commission is against the record. It is argued that District Forum had called for report of the experts which clearly establish that screws of the implant fitted in the arm of the complainant got loose within a short period, which shows that the implant was done in a negligent manner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the report of the Expert Committee comprising of Dr. Baljit Singh, Assistant Civil Surgeon, Dr. Navtej Pal Singh, Ortho Surgeon and Dr. Amrinder Singh Gill, Medical Specialist referred to in the communication sent by the Civil Surgeon Roopnagar to the District Forum Ropar as also the statement of Navtej Paul Singh.
7. We have carefully considered the record particularly the letter of Civil Surgeon Roopnagar, wherein the Medical Board report is reproduced as also the copy of the statement of Dr. Navtej Paul Singh, member of the Expert Committee. The relevant portion of the letter of the Civil Surgeon is reproduced as under:
"A Medical Board of three doctors Dr. Baljit Singh, Assistant Civil Surgeon, Dr. Navtej Paul Singh, Ortho Surgeon and Dr. Amrinder Singh Gill, Medical Specialist was constituted and the report of Board is as follows:
Sr. No Queries Medical Board Report
1.
Whether screw inside the affected arm of the complainant has been left by the operating doctor?
Screws had been put in alongwith plate by the operating surgeon.
2. Whether screw and plates fitted in the arm of the complainant are not fitted properly?
At present the plat and screws have loosened.
3. Whether second operation is necessary in PGI for removing the discrepancies left by the operating doctor?
Yes, second operation is necessary for the union of the bone."
8. On reading of the above, it transpires that as per the Expert Committee Report, the screws alongwith the plate had already been fixed. However, plates and screws were found to have loosened. There could be many reasons for loosening of screws, namely, some accident or failure on the part of the patient to follow the medical advice given by the Orthopaedic Surgeon at the time of discharge. Otherwise also, perusal of cross examination of Dr. Navtej Paul Singh would show that Dr. Singh has categorically stated that no surgery can claim 100% recovery and that loosing of implant by fall cannot be ruled out. Dr. Singh has also stated in the cross examination that in order to recover, the patient is expected to comply with the advice of the doctor. In further cross examination, Dr. Singh has stated that as per the x-ray report shown to him, there was sufficient fixation of plate and screws. From this it is evident that after the surgery, x-ray was done which showed sufficient fixation of the implant. If the screws or the plates have loosened for some reason after surgery, the doctor who conducted the surgery cannot be blamed. Thus, we do not find any fault with the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal and dismissing the complaint.
9. In view of the discussion above, we find no merit in the revision petition. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... ANUP K THAKUR MEMBER