State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.M.Damodar Raya Bhatt vs Dr.Rajveer K.Chinoy on 22 June, 2009
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI First Appeal No.440/2007 in Date of filing: 16/04/2007 Consumer Complaint No.30/2004 District Consumer Forum: Central Mumbai Date of Order: 22/06/2009 Mr.M.Damodar Raya Bhatt, Appellant B-75 Ashiani, (Org.Complainant) St.Jhon Baptist Road, Bandra(W), Mumbai- 400 050. V/s. 1. Dr.Rajveer K.Chinoy, Respondents D.Oth., M.s.Orth. (Org.Opp.Party no.1) MCH Orth (Liverpool)FRCS ED Orth, Consultanant Orthopaedic Surgeon, At P.D.Hinduja National hospital & Medical Research Centre, Veer Savarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai- 400 016. 2. P.D.Hinduja National hospital & Medical Research Centre, Veer Savarkar Road, (Org.Opp.Party No.2) Mahim, Mumbai- 400 016. Corum : Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.S.P.Lale, Honble Member.
Present:
Adv.Shri A.S.Vidyarthi for appellant.
Adv.Shri S.B.Prabhawalkar for respondent no.1.
Adv.Nitin Patil @ Adv.Mrs.Warunjikar for respondent no.2.
:- ORDER :-
Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member:
1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated passed in consumer complaint no.30/2004, Mr.M.Damodar Raya Bhatt v/s. . Dr.Rajveer K.Chinoy & ors. by District Forum, Central Mumbai (Forum below in short). The complaint stood dismissed by the impugned order/award and feeling aggrieved thereby, the complainant has filed this appeal.
2. On 26/05/2002 the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) was a victim of hit and run case of road accident in a serious condition with compound fracture leg injury and was admitted at Hinduja hospital i.e. respondent/opposite party no.2 on emergency basis where he was attended by respondent no.1/Dr.R.K.chenoy.
Complainant was diagnosis of fracture of L/3 (Lower 1/3) tibia left side compound grade III C. Tibia was exposed and complainant was profusely bleeding. The preliminary diagnosis was made and he was immediately operated by opposite party no.1/Dr.Chinoy with the help of his assistants, as a corrective measure. Complex Tibial reconstruction procedure was done (Debridement with K (Kirschner) wire fixation- Tibia with plating of fibula). After some days of the operation the complainant, as alleged by him, he was feeling uneasiness. Therefore, he again referred to opposite party no.1 and as per his advice went to casualty dressing room as OPD dressing room plaster cutter was not working. Therefore, opposite party no.1s Assistant- Dr.Bhushan cut his plaster and removed the steel pins which came out and was poking the plaster. Earlier to this also on or about 18/06/2002 one of steel pins out of four wire pin inside the ankle for fixing the bone had came out. It is the contention of the complainant that opposite party no.1 was negligent while operating him on 26/05/2002 and has chosen a wrong line of treatment ignoring his weight which was about 80 K.G. This fact was revealed to him by Dr.Shridhar Archik of Lilavati hospital when he was examined by Dr.Archik. Therefore, this consumer complaint was filed.
3. Both the opposite parties i.e. opposite party no.1/Dr.Chinoy and opposite party no.2/P.D.Hinduja hospital denied the allegations in toto and submitted that there was no negligence on part of Doctor either while operating or choosing the 4. Forum below observed that there was no negligence as alleged on part of opposite parties and dismissed the complaint.
5. We heard Adv.Shri A.S.Vidyarthi for appellant, Adv.Shri S.B.Prabhawalkar for respondent no.1, Adv.Nitin Patil @ Adv.Mrs.Warunjikar for respondent no.2. Perused the record.
6. In the instant case the complainant failed to establish that opposite party no.1/Dr.Chinoy has chosen a wrong line of operative treatment particularly ignoring his weight. The belief of the complainant that opposite party no.1 has chosen a wrong treatment is based upon the alleged disclosures made to him by Dr.Shri S.Archik as per averments made in the complaint. Dr.Archiks observations reflected in document dated 31/12/2002 (Exhibit H) did not disclose any of such representation or finding. Further in an affidavit dated 15/06/2004, Dr.Archik categorically stated that he never represented or disclosed anything to the complainant as alleged by him and categorically stated as under:
I submit that I am filing the present affidavit to place on record that, I never informed the complainant that the first surgery performed at Hinduja Hospital by Dr.Chinoy was not the right one to withstand a bodyweight of 80 Kgs. I say and submit that after examining the complainant and perusing the X-rays I informed the complainant that on account of non-union of bones the second surgery was required and not to correct a defect of the earlier surgery as stated by the complainant.
Furthermore evidence of experts such as Dr.Ram Y. Prabhu in form of an affidavit further negatives the case of the complainant and indicates that in the given circumstances what was done by opposite party no.1/Dr.Chinoy was right and correct. Operative reports received by the complainant are on record and which also shows that there was no negligence on part of opposite party no.1. Considering the progress notes of the complainant, he was rightly referred in the given circumstances, firstly, to K.E.M. hospital and then the complainant himself chosen to go for advice given of Dr.S.Archik and for further treatment at Lilavati hospital. On behalf of opposite party no.2 which gave necessary support services including infrastructure services to opposite party no.1/Dr.Chinoy, when the complainant was operated in the hospital of opposite party no.2. As further clarified from the affidavit of Dr.Mrs.S.Iyer, who is Assistant Director, Medical Services and Legal with opposite party no.2, that no negligence could be inferred on part of opposite party no.2/hospital. Since, the complainant failed to establish that opposite parties are anyway responsible for the negligent treatment or deficiency in service, Forum below rightly dismissed the complaint.
Thus we find that appeal is devoid of any substance and pass the following order:-
:-ORDER-:
1. Appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- payable to each of the respondents by the appellant and appellant to bear his own costs.
2. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode) Member Presiding Judicial Member Nbh