National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. T.N. Gupta, Nand Hospital vs Dharmdeo Yadav & Anr. on 19 November, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1822 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 19/05/2015 in Appeal No. 1306/2005 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. DR. T.N. GUPTA, NAND HOSPITAL S/O SH.CHANI PRASAD GUPTA, NAND HOSPITAL, MAIN ROAD, DEORIA UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DHARMDEO YADAV & ANR. S/O SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV, R/O VILL-PAKADI BAZAR, P.O. BARDIHA DAL, DEORIA-274204 UTTAR PRADESH 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH-MALVIYA ROAD, DEORIA UTTAR PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Anupriya Gupta, Auth. Rep For the Respondent : For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Braj Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent No. 2 : NEMO Dated : 19 Nov 2015 ORDER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. The complainant, Shri Dharamdeo Yadav, suffered accidental crush injury to his right hand between wrist and shoulder. Hand was badly crushed and literally hanging. He was treated by Dr.T.N.Gupta- OP, on 13.3.2000, but to no avail. The complainant alleged that the OP did not put plaster. The compounder treated him. There was no proper care. The OP did not take any X-ray. Hence, it was a defective treatment and negligence. The complainant approached the District Hospital, Deoria and Sunder Lal Hospital at Kashi Hindu University on 15.7.2000 and also Nehru Hospital Medical College, Gorakhpur on 23.10.2000 for further treatment. The complainant incurred an expenditure of about Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, alleging negligence on the part of the OP, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Deoria.
2. The District Forum, Deoria partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay total amount of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant .
3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP 1/Dr. T. N. Gupta and OP 2/the National Insurance Company preferred separate appeals before the State Commission, UP. Both the appeals were dismissed by the State Commission.
4. Against the order of State Commission, the OP-1 preferred this revision.
5. We have heard both the parties. Ms. Anupriya, daughter of Dr. T. N. Gupta argued the matter . On behalf of complainant, the learned counsel Mr. Braj Kumar Upadhyay, argued that, due to negligent treatment, the complainant developed deformities. We have also gone through the medical record, the evidence recorded by both the fora. In the instant case, it is clear that the complainant suffered severe injury to his right hand. The elbow joint and the bones were displaced, muscles were badly lacerated and the hand was hanging. It is clear from the clinical notes that, on 13.3.2000, OP/Dr. T. N. Gupta gave injection for tetanus, pain killers(inj Voveran) and proper antibiotics like inj Oflox, Metrogyl and Genticyn. The initial duty was to treat the lacerated soft tissue injury and corrections of bones displacement. After taking X-ray, it was diagnosed as:-
"H/O - Side Swipe Inj. Rt. Upper Limb - 1 hr back.
# S/C Hum Rt with # Monteggia dislocation Rt. With # Partial head - Radius - Displaced with large size lacerated wound Rt. Upper Fore arm, Elbow & Arm with Hypovolumic shock."
6. The OP gave initially, a POP slab with elevation, did not put plaster cast, and advised for active/passive finger movements. Advised blood transfusion, but due to non-availability for correction of hypovolemic shock, IV fluids and Hemaccel was given. The patient followed the treatment, till 16.3.2000, regularly. The complainant himself got discharged and approached the other hospitals. The other hospitals also opined about the seriousness of the injury and about less chances of complete recovery. The delay in applying plaster in such cases, is not negligence, because, when there is soft tissue injury; plaster could not be applied immediately to avoid any gangrenous changes. Therefore, in our opinion, the treatment given by OP-1 was reasonable and as per standard norms.
7. We do not find any negligence committed by OP-1; therefore, the complainant does not deserve for any compensation. Accordingly, we allow the revision petition and dismiss the complaint.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER