National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ajay Kumar Singh vs Dr. (Lt. Col.) B.P. Singh on 26 May, 2010
OP 10/1998 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 85 of 1998 Ajay Kumar Singh Qr. No. 7A, Cross Road No. 5 (In front of Kali Mandir) Zone No. 9 At + PS Birsanagar, Telco District Singhbhum East Bihar Vs. Dr. (Lt. Col.) B.P. Singh MBBS, MS (Surg.), MD (Ortho) Sr. Orthopedic Surgeon of Tinplate Hospital R/o D-15 (Daffodill Block) Ashiana Garden P.S. Sonari District Singhbhum East Bihar Complainant/Petitioner Opposite Party For the complainant Mr. Nand Lal Singh (Father of the Complainant) For the opposite party Mr. B.K. Sinha with Ms. Pratibha Sinha, Advocates BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Pronounced on : 26th May, 2010 ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER This Original Petition (original consumer complaint) has been filed by Ajay Kumar Singh, seeking a compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/-, alleging gross medical negligence against the Opposite Party, Dr. (Lt. Col.) B.P. Singh (Retired).
The 14 page lengthy complaint can be summarized as under :-
The complainant, a young man of 26 years of age, while working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Punjab National Bank at Jehanabad in Bihar, experienced acute pain at the lumber region during July, 1990. He went to Dr. A.K. Dutta (a physician) on the 6th of July, 1990 and, as per his advice, got the x-ray of LA Spine/LAT and SI Joints done from the Mrinal X-ray Clinic, Sakchi, Jamshedpur of Dr. D.K. Ganguli, who found an early evidence of Ankylosing Spondilytis. Based on this opinion, Dr. A.K. Dutta prescribed medicines and the complainant remained under his treatment for about a month and a half.
The complainant stated that he got relief from his treatment. However, there was a recurrence of the pain after about a year during August, 1991 and this time he consulted Dr. B. Mukhopadhaya at Patna. On his advice, another x-ray was got done by the complainant from Premier X-ray Imaging and Research Centre, Patna, on the basis of which Dr. B. Mukhopadhaya diagnosed his problem to be a case of early Ankylosing Spondilytis involving the hip joints. Apart from prescribing some medicines, the doctor suggested physiotherapy and he was relieved of the pain in a period of about three months under his treatment. Sometime during the month of March, 1992, however, he again developed the same kind of pain at the same place and this time he approached Dr. (Lt. Col.) B.P. Singh, the opposite party, Orthopedic Surgeon at Jamshedpur, who examined him on 13th of March, 1992 and as usual suggested another x-ray of Pelvis Lumber Spine LAT. In the x-ray report dated 14th March, 1992 of Mrinal X-ray Clinic, Dr. D.K. Ganguli, a radiologist, stated that the possibility of KOCHs left hip is to be excluded. Opposite Party-Dr. B.P. Singh, however, wanted x-ray of chest PA and he prescribed some medicines for treatment of Bone TB i.e. Anti-Tubercular Therapy (ATT) and advised complete bed rest. However, when the complainant told him that he is suffering from Ankylosing Spondilytis as per Dr. A.K. Dutta of Jamshedpur and Dr. B. Mukhopadhaya of Patna and not with Bone TB and, therefore, he wanted to go either to All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi or CMC Hospital, Vellore, allegedly the complainant was dissuaded from doing so stating that he may collapse on the way to New Delhi or Vellore and thereby the complainant surrendered to his treatment.
What followed thereafter, according to the complainant, is the horrifying story of perpetuating the wrong treatment over a prolonged period of 9 months in which the Opposite Party-Doctor forced the complainant-patient to remain on skin traction in the left leg rendering him completely confined to the bed. There were numerous visits by the Opposite Party-Doctor to the residence of the complainant and every time the patient expressed his pain and agony with regard not only of any improvement in his condition but also his condition deteriorating day-by day;
he was allegedly informed by the Opposite Party-Doctor that his was a case of Bone TB (ATT) for which there is no shortcut but requires treatment of 9 to 15 months and thereby every time when he visited the patient he only insisted on the treatment/medicines prescribed by him to be continued. On the 1st of May, 1992, when the complainant developed acute pain in his right hip and thigh, the Opposite Party-Doctor suggested another x-ray of the Pelvis and the left hip, which was got done from the Maharaja X-ray Clinic at Jamshedpur, which showed that not only there was no improvement but, on the contrary, space between both the hip joints had started reducing, endangering his life. Even this did not move the Opposite Party-Doctor and he insisted on continuing the same treatment. Another set of x-ray on the advice of the Opposite Party-Doctor was also got done from the Mrinal X-ray Clinic on the 15th of June, 1992, in which the radiologist-Dr. D.K. Ganguli opined that the x-ray was suggestive of non-specific Arthrytis of left sacro iliac joint. Even this did not deter the Opposite Party-Doctor, who continued to insist on the same medicines and kept the patient on skin traction. When despite his repeated requests the Opposite Party-Doctor was not willing to review his line of treatment and repeatedly ignored the opinion of radiologists, on the insistence of the father of the complainant the Opposite Party-Doctor accepted the complainants request and referred all the x-rays of the complainant to Dr. A.K. Bose, an eminent radiologist and ultrasonologist at Kolkata, who after reviewing all the x-rays gave his opinion that the complainant was not suffering from Tuberculous Arthritis.
According to him, it was a case of Ankylosing Spondilytis and, therefore, in his reply to the Opposite Party-Doctor he suggested immediate withdrawal of Anti-Tuberculosis drugs and also suggested that he be mobilized as soon as possible to avoid further Ankylosis of spinal and pelvic joints. He also warned that too much x-rays had harmed the complainant and, therefore, he suggested stopping further follow up x-rays to avoid radiation hazards.
The complainant states that when this opinion of Dr. Bose was shown to the Opposite Party-Doctor, he paid scant regard to the opinion and insisted on continuing his line of treatment and frightened the father of the complainant stating that if any change in the continuing treatment is made, he would lose his son. In other words, it has been the repeated refrain of the complainant that he continued the line of treatment under the Opposite Party-Doctor and did not venture to stop the treatment and perforce suffered the consequences for which it is the Opposite Party alone who is responsible. He contends that he remained under the treatment of the Opposite Party-Doctor for about 5 years and in the bargain was crippled, as he cannot move freely nor can bend forward and backward nor can sit and sleep properly nor can go upstairs due to acute stiffness in his backside and both hips have been immobilized due to continuous prolonged skin traction. That apart, he has alleged that he cannot enjoy his conjugal life and is living like a crippled helpless man. He has been rated to be 60% disabled by the competent authority.
Contending finally that he would require total hip replacement costing Rs.3 to 4 Lakhs and he has spent a huge amount of money on his treatment and that apart his entire future career has been ruined, a compensation of Rs.1 Crore for the sufferings undergone and for the future of his family would be fully justified. He also seeks another Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation for his parents who have to bear with him, as he cannot move alone anywhere.
On notice being served, the Opposite Party-Doctor resisted the complaint and filed his written statement, denying any deficiency on his part in rendering service as expected of him and totally denied any negligence. The complainant thereafter filed a rejoinder to the written statement and laid his evidence in the form of his own affidavit reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. The Opposite Party-Doctor also filed his evidence in support of his case, where-after interrogatories were served by both the parties which were replied to.
While the matter was pending for final arguments, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Doctor filed a miscellaneous application stating that during inspection of the documents filed by the complainant it was noticed by him that certain documents were either forged or tampered with and, therefore, sought the permission of this Commission to refer them for the opinion of the hand-writing-expert. This was duly considered and except for the one document dated 30th August, 1996, which is a receipt admitted to have the signature of the Opposite Party-Doctor but the contents are also admitted as alleged to be in the handwriting of the father of the complainant; the rest of the documents were held to be genuine. So far as the document dated 30th of August, 1996 is concerned, it was also ruled that there was no need to refer the same for opinion of the hand-writing-expert, as the complainant agrees that the contents are in the hand writing of his father. So the question that needed consideration was as to whether the contents were written by the father of the complainant as dictated by the Opposite Party-Doctor or it is the complainants father who has fabricated this document to suit the case of the complainant.
On a perusal of the evidence produced by the parties, it was noticed that both the parties have not filed any affidavit and/or examined any expert witness and, therefore, with the consent of the counsel for both the parties, the matter was referred to the Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India with a direction to constitute a panel of doctors (experts) who after going through the records should give their opinion if the diagnosis made and treatment given to the complainant by the Opposite Party-Doctor (Lt. Col.) B.P. Singh during the relevant period was in order or not. The report of the Director General of Health Services was received on the 3rd of July, 2008.
When the matter was thereafter taken up on the 11th of July, 2008, both the parties were apprised of the same. A copy of the report was asked for by the complainants father, which the Registry was asked to make available. It is thereafter that the matter is taken up for final arguments.
The main thrust of argument advanced by the father of the complainant is focussed only in one direction which is that the Opposite Party-Doctor diagnosed and treated the complainant to be a case of KOCHs disease i.e. Bone TB (ATT) whereas it was a case of Ankylosing Spondilytis. The negligence on the part of the Opposite Party-Doctor, according to the father of the complainant, is apparent from the fact that not only Dr. A.K. Dutta of Jamshedpur and Dr. B. Mukhopadhaya of Patna had earlier diagnosed the ailment to be Ankylosing Spondilytis but even the x-ray report of Mrinal X-ray Clinic of Jamshedpur and the x-ray of Patna had stated in their report as the case being that of early Ankylosing Spondilytis. The Opposite Party-Doctor, however, completely ignored these reports and arbitrarily diagnosed the ailment as Bone TB and started Anti Tuberculous Therapy (ATT) and also applied skin traction.
The Opposite Party-Doctor ought to have prescribed pathological tests, such as TLC, DLC, PRC etc. which are essential for arriving at a conclusive diagnosis of Bone TB which was not done.
Had these tests been done, it would have been proved that the complainant was not suffering from the Bone TB, as the blood report would have given the normal range which was found to be so from the test report dated 14th of March, 1992 of the Kumar Pathology Centre.
It was because of this wrong diagnosis that the complainant was given the Anti Tuberculosis treatment and skin traction on both legs, which has crippled him. Medical negligence was loud and clear. The clinching evidence, however, the father of the complainant contends, comes from the fact that when an eminent radiologist and ultrasonologist-Dr. A.K. Bose of Kolkata on a referral from the Opposite Party-Doctor himself vide his opinion dated 3rd of November, 1992 clearly stated that he did not find patient suffering from Tuberculosis Arthrytis, the Opposite Party-Doctor did not even pause for a while to review his treatment; insisted on continuing the same; and even threatened the father of the complainant that any change in the treatment would result in disastrous consequences for the patient. The father of the complainant, therefore, submits that the Opposite Party-Doctor has not only been negligent but his arrogance speaks of the deficiency in the service, for which he cannot but be held liable.
With regard to the expert opinion offered by the Medical Board constituted by the Director General of Health Services, the father of the complainant submits that the same has been rendered without any basis as the opinion expressed does not give the details of any analysis of the evidence and it is not necessary for the Commission to give much importance to it since the available evidence is more than adequate to prove the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party-Doctor. He has, therefore, submitted that this is a case of res ipsa loquitur and the Opposite Party-Doctor being squarely liable for his negligence, the compensation asked for be awarded as the bright career and family life of the complainant has been ruined with no chance of its revival.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Doctor on the other hand has raised some preliminary objections. His first contention is that the complaint was not entertainable, as it was barred by limitation. According to him, the complainant was under the treatment of the Opposite Party-Doctor from 13th of March, 1992 to 15th of June, 1993 whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 1998. Since the complainant had ceased to be under the treatment of the Opposite Party-Doctor from 1993, clearly there is a delay of five years, which is barred under Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Countering the contention of the complainant that the treatment extended until the year 1997 on the basis of the certificate dated 10.09.1997 given by the Opposite Party-Doctor, the counsel submits that this certificate has to be read in the context of the complainant seeking such a certificate to help him in matters of his service with his employer. This, therefore, cannot be taken to ipso-facto extend the limitation.
On the point of diagnosis and treatment of the complainant, the counsel submits that based on his clinical experience and as per x-ray report dated 15th of March, 1992 of Dr. D.K. Ganguli advising the possibility of KOCHs left hip to be excluded, it was his best judgment that the complainant required the treatment for Bone TB in his own interest and accordingly advised the medicine and bed rest with skin traction. The fact that there was marked improvement consequent to the commencement of the treatment goes to prove that there was nothing wrong in his approach. The counsel contends that various x-rays subsequent to the treatment showed not only improvement in the condition of the patient but also tendency of being quite normal and this is proved from the fact that the complainant was able to resume his normal duty. The counsel has further contended that the complainant suffering from Ankylosing Spondilytis does not by itself militate against the fact that earlier he was not suffering from Bone TB. Further, as rightly opined by the Medical Board constituted by this Commission, both Ankylosing Spondilytis and Tuberculosis can co-exist. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that the complainant was not suffering from Bone TB, for which the treatment was correctly given and maybe the existence of Ankylosing Spondilytis was detected only at a later stage for which also the complainant was treated. It cannot, therefore, be said that there has been any negligence. At the most, it can be an error of judgment, which cannot be termed as negligence.
In the next limb of his argument, the learned counsel has contended that the complaint is not bonafide and has been filed with some ulterior motive and in that context he has referred to the property dispute with his younger brother with whom the father of the complainant is in league. This would be obvious from the fact that even though the Opposite Party-Doctor had ceased to give him any treatment after 1993, the complaint has been filed as an afterthought at a much later stage just to harass the Opposite Party-Doctor and extort some undeserved gain.
The fact that the complainant at no stage has represented or issued any notice seeking any explanation from the Opposite Party-Doctor and has straightaway rushed to file a consumer complaint goes to show that the complaint has been filed as an afterthought.
Learned counsel further contends that the whole argument of the complainant that he was coerced into continuing his treatment from June, 1991 until 1993 stretching over a period of 15 months falls to the ground since he himself contends that even thereafter he was under the treatment of the Opposite Party until 1997 when the alleged certificate was obtained by him. It simply cannot be believed that any patient who remains in his house and receives treatment can by any stretch of imagination be either threatened or coerced into continuing the treatment under a particular doctor, whatever be the threat of consequence. Besides, if the complainant could go to various pathological centers to get his x-rays and tests done, he could as well approach any other Orthopedic Surgeon with those reports to cross-check that the treatment being received was appropriate or otherwise. The fact that the complainant continued to remain under the treatment of the Opposite Party-Doctor and had repeatedly requested him to visit his house goes to prove that all through this period he had benefitted from his treatment and reposed faith in him.
As to why he did not pay any heed to the opinion of Dr. A.K. Bose, the eminent radiologist-cum-ultrasonologist, the counsel contends that opinion obtained by the father of the complaint was never shown to him.
Referring to para 48 of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another [(2005) 6 SCC 1], learned counsel contends that A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. In the instant case, even if it is presumed though not admitted that the Opposite Party-Doctor had failed to diagnose the existence of Ankylosing Spondilytis while simultaneously suffering from Bone TB, it could at best be treated as an error of judgment and not negligence per se.
Finally on the quantum of compensation, the counsel has vehemently argued that it is a fancy sum that is being asked for, as the complainant was only a Clerk-cum-Cashier with a Bank and after recovery from the treatment he has rejoined his duty. No doubt, he may require hip replacement but being an employee of the Bank, he would be entitled to the reimbursement. He, therefore, submits that the complaint being without any merit deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard the father of the complainant, who has appeared in person before us, as also the learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Doctor. Further, we have perused the records of the case very carefully.
The facts as emerging from the records undisputedly go to show that complainant Ajay Kumar Singh, a Clerk-cum-Cashier with the Punjab National Bank, Jehanabad Branch, Bihar even prior to his joining service during the year 1989 had been suffering from backache and had approached Dr. A.K. Dutta on the 6th of July, 1990, who, in his case sheet, stated that the complainant was having low backache on and off since 1989 and the report of the x-ray on his advice obtained from Mrinal X-ray Clinic gave the conclusion Appearance suggestive of early evidence of Ankylosing Spondilytis. Thereafter, the complainant changed his doctor and went to Dr. B. Mukhopadhaya at Patna and, as admitted by the complainant, he gained some relief. A few months thereafter, however, there was a recurrence of the pain and on 13th of March, 1992 he contacted the Opposite Party-Dr. (Lt. Col.) B.P. Singh at Jamshedpur, where his parents reside. On his advice, he got the Lumber region of his body x-rayed on the next day i.e. on 14th of March, 1992. It would be useful to extract this x-ray report since the Opposite Party-Doctor has based his diagnosis on this. It reads as under :-
LUMBER SPINE LAT :-
The lumber spine shows no osteophytes or diminution of the joint spaces.
CONCLUSION :-
Normal L.S. Spine.
PELVIS AP/VIEW :-
From the previous x-ray, the left hip joint shows marked changes.
There has appeared small circular osteolytic areas in the head of the femur with and diminution of the joint space.
The right hip comparatively shows no such involvement.
The juxta articular sclerosis of both the hip joints has increased.
CONCLUSION :-
The possibility of Kochs left hip to be excluded.
The Opposite Party-Doctor, having taken note of the history of the patient, his clinical examination and after correlating his findings with the x-ray report, diagnosed the complainant to be suffering from Bone TB and, therefore, started the treatment for the same. Apart from the set of medicine prescribed for the treatment of Bone TB, he also advised skin traction resulting in complete bed rest for the complainant. The treatment continued from March, 1992 until June, 1993. While the Opposite Party-Doctor claims that the complainant had considerable improvement in his condition and was able to rejoin his duties, the complainants case is that there was not only no improvement but on the contrary because of the fear injected into the minds of the complainant and his father that any change of treatment may result in the death of the complainant, they were emotionally blackmailed to continue the same treatment, which had the crippling effect of the complainant not being able to walk, bend or move freely because of the stiffening of his back which has resulted in 60% disability. The father of the complainant has vehemently argued that on the face of the finding given by the Mrinal X-ray Clinic, Jamshedpur that the radiological appearance was suggestive of early evidence of Ankylosing Spondilytis and further that when eminent radiologist and ultrasonologist of Kolkata, Dr. A.K. Bose, categorically opined that the complainant was not suffering from Bone TB but it was a case of Ankylosing Spondilytis, the Opposite Party-Doctor did not bother to review his own treatment and insisted on continuing with ATT. It was in this background that this Commission thought it appropriate to obtain the opinion of an expert body and referred the matter to the Director General of Health Services, Government of India with a direction to constitute a Medical Board and apprise this Commission of their view in the matter. The Directorate General of Health Services vide its letter dated 3rd of July, 2008 has stated that a Medical Board constituted of concerned specialists under the Chairpersonship of Dr. L. Sonar, Deputy Director General (P) has opined that there is no negligence on the part of the treating doctor. It has further been stated that both Ankylosing Spondilytis and Tuberculosis can co-exist. The treatment given by the treating doctor at that point of time was in accordance with the radiologists report and investigations. The father of the complainant has contended that the opinion expressed by the Medical Board should not be taken on its face value, as it neither discusses the medical papers/reports and has stated contrary to the factual position that the treatment given by the treating doctor at that point of time was in accordance with the radiologists report and investigations. According to him, the body of experts do not seem to have critically analyzed the opinion expressed by Dr. A.K. Bose (eminent radiologist and ultrasonologist), who in his reply to the Opposite Party-Doctor had categorically stated that the complainant was not suffering from Bone TB but his was a case of Ankylosing Spondilytis. The fact that even the Opposite Party-Doctor realized though much later that it was a case of Ankylosing Spondilytis goes to prove that from very beginning the Opposite Party-Doctor had committed a blunder in diagnosing the case of Ankylosing Spondilytis to be a case of Bone TB and thereafter despite the reports to the contrary insisted on continuing the same therapy to the detriment of the complainant. While the father of the complaint would expect the Commission to discard the medical opinion expressed by the medical body, we are afraid the opinion received from a group of eminent experts cannot be discarded just because it does not give any detail discussion with regard to the x-ray reports, the diagnosis and the treatment, as even if they had been provided, this Commission would not have been in a better position to evaluate the technical findings. To the extent that the father of the complainant has contended that the Mrinal X-ray Clinic of Dr. D.K. Ganguli had recorded the finding that the radiological appearance was suggestive of early evidence of Ankylosing Spondilytis, it has to be noted that this report was given on the 7th of July, 1990 whereas the patient was brought to the Opposite Party-Doctor on 15th of March, 1992 and the Opposite Party-Doctor himself had got the fresh x-ray done on the very next date, which gave the indication of Bone TB.
Besides, when the opinion expressed by the body of experts clearly states that both Ankylosing Spondilytis and Tuberculosis can co-exist and in this case if the Opposite Party-Doctor has based the diagnosis on the x-ray report and arrived at the conclusion that the complainant was suffering from Bone TB and continued the treatment, which, it so happens, required a prolonged treatment over a period of 15 months, it could not be said that the Opposite Party-Doctor was negligent.
The other contention vehemently argued by the father of the complainant that the Opposite Party-Doctor had treated with contempt, the opinion of Dr. A.K. Bose; we find that the Opposite Party-Doctor has tried to advance a defence by contending that the said opinion was not shown to him. This contention of the Opposite Party-Doctor does not appear to be creditworthy for the simple reason that it is the Opposite Party-Doctor who himself had addressed a referral to Dr. Bose, who in his reply has given his free and frank opinion, of course, on the basis of x-ray reports which were carried by the father of the complainant and shown to him. It is to be noted that Dr. Bose did not have the advantage of clinically examining the patient to correlate his findings. Be that as it may, since the Opposite Party-Doctor had himself made a referral, he ought to have taken notice of the opinion of Dr. Bose and should have reviewed the treatment. To that extent, we find an element of arrogance in the Opposite Party-Doctor, which is not expected of a medical man. While this attitude and conduct of the Opposite Party-Doctor deserves to be deprecated, in view of the opinion expressed by the expert committee of doctors, we do not hold him accountable for medical negligence.
In this regard, we may profitably rely upon para-21 of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another [(2005) 6 SCC 1], in which the Honble Apex Court while dealing with the subject of medical negligence had drawn inspiration from and referred to the Halsburys Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol. 30, para 35), which reads as under :-
35. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way ; nor is he guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical men.
Deviation from normal practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. To establish liability on that basis it must be shown (1) that there is a usual and normal practice; (2) that the defendant has not adopted it; and (3) that the course in fact adopted is one no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken had he been acting with ordinary care.
In the same very judgment, the Honble Apex Court has referred to the settled law that it is not enough to show that there is a body of competent professional opinion which considers that the decision of the defendant professional was a wrong decision, if there also exists a body of professional opinion, equally competent, which supports the decision as reasonable in the circumstances. The judgment also referred to the leading speech of Lord Scarman, which reads as under:-
In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is ample scope for genuine difference of opinion and one man clearly is not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional men The true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of a doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure as no doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of it acting with ordinary care.
Facts of the case in hand can be aptly correlated to the dictum narrated above and the Opposite Party-Doctor cannot be held to have been negligent in adopting the course of treatment as per his best judgment.
A number of other points have been raised from either sides, such as the complainant alleging that the Opposite Party-Doctor when being requested by the complainant to go either to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi or to CMC, Vellore told that the complainant may collapse in the way of New Delhi or Vellore and further that Opposite Party-Doctor had frightened him that any movement of the complainant would cause his death and further that on 25th of June, 1992 he made him alarmed saying that as soon as skin traction would be removed, he would collapse and there was no chance of his survival etc. appear to be only exaggerated emotional outburst of the father of the complainant, as he himself has been inviting the Opposite Party-Doctor to attend to his son at his residence not once but repeatedly. If he was so aggrieved from his treatment that rather than any improvement, it was deteriorating day by day, he ought to have got his son examined from some other hospital/doctor. Since we have the opinion of the Medical Board comprised of experts, which we value with thanks, we do not consider it necessary to discuss the interrogatories and other evidence related to the treatment.
In view of the discussion above, the complaint does not stand substantiated and is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
(K.S. GUPTA, J) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh/