Thalluri Vidya Sagar,
S/o. Bhaskara Rao,
Chekuri Village & Post,
Chebrolu Mandal,
Guntur District. … Complainant
AND
Dr.Kotha Ravindra Babu,
S/o. Raja Bapaiah,
Devi Nursing Home,
Kothapet, Tenali.
Guntur District. … Opposite party

O R D E R

This complaint is filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant claiming compensation of Rs.4,95,000/- in all with future interest and costs of litigation on the ground of deficiency of service, neglected and careless treatment on the part of the opposite party.
The brief facts of the case:- The complainant by name T. Vidya Sagar came down to Tenali town on 18-05-99 on scooter in order to get seeds for agricultural purpose. While returning back to his village Sekur of Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur district, on the same day at about 8.00 pm in the night, he slipped from the scooter and sustained injury to his right femur at knee joint.

He was admitted in the Nursing Home of Dr. Ravindra Babu, Devi Nursing Home, Kothapet, Tenali (opposite party) at about 9.30 p.m., Dr. K. Ravindra Babu attended on the complainant and advised him to take x-ray of right femur, knee, skull etc., as he sustained other injuries also on his body. On that night some sedative tablets also administered. Next day i.e., on 19-05-99 at about 5 p.m. after seeing the x-rays POP was applied to the right femur covering the knee and leg portion. It is alleged that Dr. K. Ravindra Babu has not taken enough care and precautionary measures to set the fractured bone and applied the POP.

This caused much pain to the complainant. The father of the complainant also requested the doctor to take proper care. One Dr. Karumanchi Uma Maheswara Rao who visits this nursing home weekly once (arthopaedician) has also examined the complainant and made a rectangular window cut in the POP and found that there was swelling and advised some medicines to reduce this swelling. But both the doctors never cared to give proper treatment to this complainant.


On 29-06-99 Dr K. Ravindra Babu (opposite party) has opened the bandage plaster and this complainant has suffered a lot at that time. Even after opening the plaster by the op, swelling was found at the knee joint. But the opposite party never cared to take precautionary measures. Consequently, the right leg of the complainant became stiff and he is unable to move anywhere.

Again the complainant after 10 days approached the opposite party, who in turn recommended physiotherapy by one Smt V. Satyamadhavi, she gave physiotherapy to the stiffed leg at the nursing home of the opposite party. This was done for about 2 months even then the complainant did not recover. Subsequently, the complainant approached and consulted number of doctors both in Vijayawada and Hyderabad. At last he consulted Dr. Rangachari at Hyderabad on 25-1-2000 to get correct information on his stiffed leg. Dr. Rangachari gave treatment for about one month and has opined that setting of the fractured femur by the opposite party is not correct. It is found that around the broken pieces of the femur mass of flesh developed because of which the leg is stiffened.

It is due to irregular setting of bones at the knee joint by the opposite party while the complainant was operated. The Opposite party did not give any guarantee about the same to the complainant. The complainant is still suffering with swelling and pain in his leg. Consequently, he was unable to move anywhere. Therefore, the complainant is suffering physically, mentally and financially and is unable to do his agricultural work. He spent more money in consulting the doctors and also for the medicines. He is unable to move without the help of an attendant. Hence, the complaint.


The opposite party filed its version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that the opposite party would normally available in his nursing home till about 10.00 or 10.30 pm in the night. On 18-5-99 after attending the nursing home the opposite party was at his home and at that time the complainant was admitted in the nursing home with multiple injuries.

At the instructions of the opposite party his staff attended on the complainant and gave a room No.34. At that time x-ray technician was not available as such x-ray of skull, lateral view of femur and thigh of the complainant were taken on 19-5-99 in the morning hours. The opposite party after examining the complainant and the reports at about 1.30 pm (noon) the fractured bone of right femur was correctly set and applied POP encasement (cast) to his right thigh, knee and leg of the complainant. The complainant was also treated for his head, scalp and face injuries. On 21-5-99 Dr. K. Umamaheswara Rao came to the nursing home who visits once in a week and seen the x-ray and plastered leg of the complainant by making a rectangular cut (window) in the plaster and found it alright. Later, the complainant nor Dr. Umamaheswara Rao made any remark in the method of treatment given by the opposite party.



The complainant got himself discharged from the nursing home of the opposite party on 25-5-99 inspite of advice to stay in the nursing home as in patient for day-to-day check up. But the complainant stated that he must go, the POP did not remove by 25-5-99. After that date the complainant did not turn to the hospital of the opposite party for further treatment and even for the removal of the POP after 6 weeks. The complainant also did not make full payment of fee and other charges when he was discharged on 25-05-99. Subsequently, he sent a sum of Rs.1500/- through some one on 31-5-99.
The question of advising the complainant to undergo physiotherapy under one Vasireddy Satya madhavi does not arise at the time of discharge of the complainant as POP was applied to the leg. After 25-5-99 the complainant did not see the opposite party for further treatment or for any other advise.

This opposite party is not aware and has no knowledge about the medical opinion obtained by the complainant from other doctors including Dr.Rangachari of Hyderabad and the opposite party deny the same and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. This opposite party is well qualified and experienced medical practitioner. He was not negligent or shown carelessness in giving medical services to the complainant during the period in between 19-5-99 to 25-5-99. This opposite party is no way concerned with the alleged mental suffering and financial loss of the complainant. There was nothing like that sort. As per the complaint, the cause of action arose on 18-5-99 whereas the complaint is filed on 28-1-02 as such the same is barred by limitation.

The complaint has no cause of action against this opposite party, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further, it is submitted that the complainant has filed some Photostat copies of the prescriptions dated 29-5-99, 30-5-99 purported to have been prescribed by this opposite party, but they are not correct. These prescriptions are no way concerned with the injuries received by the complainant. The compensation claimed by the complainant is not at all maintainable under law or on facts. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation to whatsoever. The contents of the complaint reveal that he was operated upon knee joint but no operation was done on the knee joint. All the contents of the complaint are false. There was neither medical negligence nor deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.


Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
The complainant examined himself before this Forum as PW1, his father namely Bhaskar Rao as PW2 and one more villager by name Suryadevara Gandhi as PW3. The complainant also got marked documents vide Exs.A-1 to A-29. The opposite party Dr. Ravindra Babu filed his affidavit and gave evidence before the Forum as RW1. Dr. Umamaheswara Rao is examined as RW2. Dr. V. Satyamadhavi is examined as RW3. The opposite party got marked the documents vide Exs.B-1 to B-12 (Subject to objection). We have gone through the evidence on record and also considered the contentions raised by both sides.

Now the points for determination in the case are as follows,
1. Whether the opposite party has rendered deficiency of service in giving treatment to the complainant and was negligent and careless in attending on him during the period of treatment, as alleged?

2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation as alleged by the opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation as claimed for?


4. To what relief?

POINT No.1:- Before discussion of the case on merits and to appreciate the contentions raised by both sides, it is necessary to bear in mind the basic principles evolved by the apex court and National Commission on the aspect of medical negligence and deficiency of service committed by the doctors/hospitals in that regard.


In the case of Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Ors. V.State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in I (1996) CLT 532 (SC)1996 (2) SCC 634. Their Lordships observed that in cases where the doctors act carelessly and in a manner, which is not expected of a medical practitioner, then in such a case an action on torts would be maintainable. Their Lordship further observed that if the doctor has taken proper precaution and despite that if the patient does not survive then the Court should be very slow in attributing, negligence on the part of the doctor. It was held as follows:
“A medical practitioner has various duties towards his patient and he must act with a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. This is the least, which a patient expects from a doctor.

The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment, which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession and the Court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent aliment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence. But in cases where the doctors act carelessly and in a manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner, then in such a case an action in torts would be maintainable.”


In the case of Jacob Mathew V.State of Punjab & Anr., III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC)III (2005) CCR 9 (SC)VI (2005) SLTI112 (2005) DLT 83 (SC)(2005) 6 SCC


1. The Court has approved the test as laid down in Bolam V. Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957) I W.L.R. 582, popularly known as Bolam’s Test, in its applicability to India. The relevant principles culled out from the case of Jacob Mathew (supra) read as under:


(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P.Singh), referred to herein above, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: ‘duty’, ‘breach’ and ‘resulting damage’.



(2) 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. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence.


(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.


The case on hand is simple one but made complicated by keeping it pending for a long 7 years. This evidence on record goes to show that on 18-05-99 at about 8.00 p.m. the complainant while returning to his village Sekur from Tenali met with an accident and sustained multiple injuries on his body and got admitted in the clinic of opposite party on the same night. On his examination there was,
1) Contusion on his left scalp frontal parietal regions
2) Abrasion on the left side of face in front of left ear
3) Abrasion front of chest left breast
4) Swelling lower end of right thigh


The patient was not able to walk. Fracture of femer at lower end. X-ray of skull AP lateral, X-ray right femer skull AP lateral were advised and taken on the next day, as technician was not available in that night. The patient was given
Gentamycin IV,
Polybion 1 amp,
150 CC mannital IV,
Megapen IV,
Tet/vac 1 amp,
Zotrid 1 amp,
DNS 1 bottle.


The afore said injuries and treatment given is evident from Ex.A-1, A-2 and as well as Ex.B-5 case sheet. Dr. Kotha Ravindra Babu (OP) was said to be not available during that night hours in clinic when the complainant was admitted. He left home as usual by 10.00 or 10.30 pm. On informing about the admission of the complainant with multiple injuries RW1 has instructed the duty doctor and other staff to give first aid treatment by prescribing medicines and advised x-rays for the injuries sustained. The cross examination of RW1 reveal that both Exs.A-1 and A-2 (prescriptions) dated 18-05-99 were written by Dr. Tukaram who works in his clinic. Though PW1 and 2 in their evidence vaguely said that opposite party has treated in that night (i.e., on 18-05-99), it cannot be expected that RW1 was in the clinic till late in the night.

Had he present and attended on the complainant in that night there was no necessity for RW1 to speak like that, on his instructions his hospital staff attended on the complainant. The chief affidavit coupled with cross-examination of RW1 and Ex.A-1 and A-2 prescription chits would make it clear that the first aid was given by the hospital staff. Dr. Ravindra Babu (RW1) attended on the complainant on 19-5-99. After x-rays were taken on arrival of the technician and examining the same, it was found that nothing abnormal is detected in the x-ray of skull AP lateral view. Whereas, x-ray of right femur revealed fracture of lower end extended upto the knee joint. There upon cylindrical plaster was applied to right thigh covering knee and leg portion. Under traction the fractured lower end of femer pieces were compressed together with knee is slightly flexible position. This is evident from the case sheet vide Ex.B-5 and version of RW1. This was done on 19-05-99 in between 12.00 and 2.00 pm. 150 CC Mannital was also given. The pulse, BP, Pupil are also checked. T.N. D.N.S. 1 bottle is given. Again in the evening the patient was checked and he was given medicines like polybion and Zotrid 1 amp in addition to Mannital 150 CC.


The complainant mainly alleged that the fractured femer bone was not properly set while applying POP and there was inordinate delay in applying the same. According to them POP was applied at 5 pm in the evening on 19-5-99. Further the complainant alleges that the x-ray was taken on 18-5-99 during that night (as per x-ray film) but not on 19-5-99. But on perusal of the case sheet report of blood tests and x-rays, it reveal the date as 19-5-99. This is evident from Exs.A-6 & A-7. The blood report is also dated 19-5-99 as per Ex.A-3 to A-5. The above-referred documents coupled with evidence of RW1 would go to show in all probability x-rays were taken on 19-5-99 but not on 18-5-99, the reason is that non-availability of the technician during that night hours. The complainant got admitted in the hospital in all probability after 11.00 pm itself. He met with an accident at about 8.00 pm while returning to his village.

Even after the accident, he was taken to the village and again brought to Tenali. PW1 to 3 speak that they reached the hospital by 9.30 pm and x-ray was taken on the same night by the opposite party. If x-rays were taken on the same night without availability of a technician, the payment receipts for x-ray and blood tests show the dates as 19-5-99. If really x-rays were taken on that night what is the necessity for RW1 to speak that they were taken on next day i.e., on 19-05-99, what is relative advantage in speaking so. This factor is to be analyzed in the light of evidence on record. Dr. Ravindra Babu (RW1) categorically speaks that at the time of discharge of the complainant, discharge summary was given to him, but no suggestion is made to him about this. However it is suggested to PW2 but he has denied the same. The complainant having possessed x-ray films has not produced the same before the Forum at the time of hearing. The counsel for the complainant submits that they are available with him at his home.

On the basis of Ex.A-3 to A-6 and keeping in view the above-referred circumstances, it can be safely concluded that x-rays were taken on 19-5-99 itself. Even it is assumed as alleged by the complainant that x-rays were taken on 18-5-99 what could be its impact with regard to the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that though x-ray was taken on 18-05-99 immediately after the admission of the patient there was delay in setting the fractured bone and applying the POP and this amounts to neglected treatment on the part of the opposite party. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted text book extracts on the subject of Morphology of human skeleton to understand the location and structural phenomena of right femur more especially the lateral condyle. There is no dispute in between the parties about the fracture sustained on the lateral condyle and treatment given to that part by the opposite party. As per the aforesaid text,

“The Lateral Condyle overhangs the shaft, especially at its poster lateral part, which bears on its inferior surface a small circular facet for articulation with the upper end of the fibula. The upper surface is covered with an articular surface for the lateral condyle of the femur. Nearly circular in outline, it is slightly hollowed in its central part, and its medial border extends upwards to cover an elevation, termed the lateral intercondylar tubercle. The posterior, lateral and anterior surfaces of the condyle are rough”.


The version of RW1 and RW2 outweigh the allegations made by the complainant counsel that the treatment is delayed and the fractured bone was not set properly before applying POP. There is no other expert evidence contrary to the evidence of the opposite party in this regard. None of the doctors who have examined PW1 subsequent to RW1 opined that setting of the bone and applying POP was delayed and consequently, the stiffness of the leg developed. This would make it clear if we examine the treatment reports given by other doctors. On 15-9-99 (Ex.A-17) PW1 was examined by one Dr. K. Ratna babu. He found that intraarticular fracture of lateral condyle and advised quadriceps physiotherapy. Again on 17-9-99 PW1 visited Dr. V.V. Narayana Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon of GGH, Guntur who in turn also advised physiotherapy and some tablets. Dr. M.R. Rao, Guntur (Ex.A-19) prescribed some medicines. Date of examination is not shown in the letter pad. On 25-9-99 PW1 was examined by M.J. Naidu (Ex.A-20). NIMS hospital (Ex.A-21) on 1-10-99 noticed Mal united hoppas fracture of right femur which is 5 months old.

They too advised physiotherapy by way of gentle knee mobilization. Kamineni hospital (Ex.A-22) also advised physiotherapy CPM O-ROM exercise. On 28-12-99 they advised hynged knee replacing because of displaced neglected old condylor fracture femur complaint of stiffness. Finally PW1 visited Dr. T. Rangachari, senior arthopaedician of Hyderabad (Ex.A-23). Dr. Rangachari examined PW1 on 25-1-2000 and evaluated the case in the following manner,
“examination dated 25-1-2000 and 26-1-2000 are reproduced hereunder.”



This doctor has opined that there is no need to have a total knee replacement in view of the stability and fair range of movement. On the otherhand, he too advised physical exercise of leg movement. His opinion is contrary to the opinion expressed by the doctor of Kamineni Hospital.




The opposite party has also submitted textbook extracts on the subject of osteochondral fracture of knee and distal femur:-

Including classification of distal femur with diagrams. Some important note is pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite party is extracted hereunder:


“The classification of distal femoral fractures described by Muller et al. is useful in determining treatment and prognosis. It is based on the location and pattern of the fracture and considers all fractures within the transepicondylar width of the knee. Type A fractures involve the distal shaft only with varying degrees of comminution. Type B fractures are condylar fractures; type B1 is a sagittal split of the lateral condyle, B2 is a sagittal split of the medical condyle, and B3 is a coronal plane fracture. Type C fractures are T and Y condylar fractures; type C1 fractures have no comminution, C2 fractures have a comminuted shaft fracture with two principle articular fragments, and C3 fractures have intraarticular comminution.”



The learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that both RW1 and 2 are experienced doctors who have examined the case of PW1 and treated him as per the standard of medical principles. It is PW1 who has not followed the medical advise scrupulously and got discharged himself from the hospital without staying for 6 weeks in order to have regular check up and follow up action. On the other hand, he got removed plaster forcibly and before union of the fractured bone. In this regard evidence of RW3 relied upon. He opened the knee joint forcibly which gave rise the alleged complications during that period and subsequently mobility is found in his leg as evaluated by Dr Rangachari. It is also contended strongly that the complainant has not placed on record proper and sufficient evidence to establish deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. In support of the above referred contentions, the following decisions are relied upon,


1. 2009 (1) CPR 389 Dr. Rasik M. Shah vs. Dr. A.R. Kalra,
In the above case, the wife of the complainant was suffering from toothache and shaky molar tooth. 2 methods are available to relieve pain of offending tooth, one is extraction of offending tooth and other is aspiration method. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is observed that it is the choice of treating surgeon which method or procedure should be followed in the given circumstances. No medical negligence is held on the part of the doctor by the Maharashtra State Commission.”


2. 2008 (4) CPR 139 Desh Raj vs. Dr. Mahabir Goel and Another, Chandigarh State Commission has opined that unless it can be proved through cogent expert opinion that the treatment adopted by the doctor was not as per accepted medical norms or through any literature it could be proved that the line of treatment or the manner of performance of the operation was totally opposed to the adopted medical procedures, the doctor cannot be held guilty.”


3. 2008 (4) 145 CPR in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Dr. Bhupinder Jayani and Anr., Chandigarh State Commission has opined that in case of medical negligence it is incumbent on the complainant to prove that the treating doctor had not done what he was required to do or he did something which he as not required to do.


4. 2006 (1) CPR 6 Mr. S. Manjunathan vs. Dr. Sriram & Anr, the Karnataka State Commission while appreciating the facts of the case dismissed the complaint on the ground of medical negligence. The observations are made here under,


a. The complainant met with a road accident and got admitted in OP1 hospital for treatment. The complainant was operated for fracture of lower right femur. Thereafter the complainant developed pus in the thigh. Again another operation was conducted by OP1. Inspite of that the discharge of pus and swelling in the thigh continued. Due to heavy pain and suffering, the complainant, even after his discharge, approached OP2 hospital. However, this time, the OP1, alleged to have refused to admit the complainant in the hospital. The complainant then approached HOSMAT Hospital, wherein he was operated by removing the loose cancellous screws. Despite of all these operations, his suffering was not mitigated. A complaint was filed alleging negligence on the part of the Ops. The Ops denied the allegations of negligence on their par.


b. Having made serious allegations in the complaint, it is the duty of the complainant to substantiate it with all available material, which is not done. The complainant failed to make out any case as alleged in the complaint. The OPs have satisfactorily negatived the case of the complainant which is without any support of corroborative material based on the sole testimony of the complainant. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.


The medical text referred above contemplate intra articular fracture of knee joint can be fixed by doing operation alternatively intra articular fracture with minimum displacement can be treated conservatively by applying POP cast. Both these kind of fractures are prone to develop stiffness of the knee joint as such physiotherapy is required after stabilization of the fracture to some extent.


It is also seen from the morphological structure i.e., femur knee joint is weight bearing part of the body as such mobilization is essential. Now it is to be seen in what circumstances windows are opened and blood is aspirated from the knee joint. There are two methods to aspirate the blood, one is before applying POP itself, haematoma can be aspirated, in case POP is applied firstly window can be applied in the POP cast to aspirate the haematoma. So the window is made to cure inside soft tissue injuries by way of cleaning and by aspirating haematoma. If persistent pain is there, POP can also be removed.


In the present case also the opposite party has treated the lateral condyle fracture as per the standards of medical principles. The complainant alleges that there is delay in setting the bone and applying POP. Whereas the evidence of RW1 (case sheet) shows that it was done on 19-5-99 by 2.00 or 230 pm. Even it is assumed that it was done by 5.00 pm, we do not think that it would cause damage to the patient. In case of accidental fractures such delays are bound to occur. Unless, it requires emergency treatment and the patient is brought in time. The stiffness caused in the knee joint is no way due to negligent or careless treatment of RW1, but in such injuries such a situation is commonly noticed. In the following case,


(P.R. Sumangi vs. Kairali Medical Centre & Anr., 1997 (3) CPR 418) Kerala State Commission, observed that, ,the complainant’s 9 years old son fell on the floor and his left hand and knee became swollen. He was taken to 1st opposite party’s hospital who provided first aid and prescribed pain killing tablets. After 13 days he again developed pain and swelling for which he was again taken to the same hospital where after x-ray, plastering was done by the 2nd opposite party.


It was alleged that due to tight plaster, blood circulation to his left hand was repaired and he was rushed to another doctor who cut and removed the plaster and the doctor was in doubt whether the hand was to be amputated. Ultimately he was operated upon and referred to a specialist for skin grafting. 2nd opposite party died during hearing of the case. The State Commission held that the complainant had not succeeded in establishing that the complications arose on account of negligence or lack of care on the part of the opposite parties. Complaint dismissed.


In Soni Kumari vs. Dr. Nagendra Narain Bhagat, 2003 (1) CPJ 196, Bihar State Commission, held that the complainant has failed to prove negligence on the part of the opposite party, where plastering of fractured leg caused infection resulting in amputation. The evidence on record shows that opposite party gave only first aid and treated the patient on single day. There is nothing on record to show that she remain admitted in the clinic for the alleged period.


The facts of the case similar to the facts involved in the above referred cases. The complainant did not categorically state in his complaint that he was in patient for 40 days in the hospital of opposite party. The legal notice got issued by him is also silent on this aspect. However, after filing of version by the opposite party PW1 to 3 developed their version in saying that PW1 stayed as in patient for 40 days. There is no documentary evidence to this effect on their behalf. The so called prescriptions given by the opposite party hospital is upto 30-5-99. The prescriptions dated 29-5-09 and 30-5-99 vide Ex.A-13 and A-14 were said to be not given by RW1.

But the prescriptions are noted on the hospital slip of opposite party. It is not known in whose handwriting these prescriptions are given. Ex.A-13 dated 29-5-99 prescribed some medicines. Where as Ex.A-14 dated 30-5-99 advised x-ray of left hand, it must be x-ray of lateral condyle of femur. Ex.A-15 dated 30-5-99 in the handwriting of RW2 who examined PW1 and some medicines were given for 30 days. Again he had examined on 29-6-99 which is evident from Ex.A-16. This is the documentary evidence produced by the complainant. Whereas, RW1 categorically state that he has never seen the patient after he got discharged on his own request on 25-5-99. Further, he rely upon the entry date in the case sheet vide Ex.B-5. This shows that on the request of the complainant and his attendants he was discharged. At that time, regular check up and follow up action advised.


Therefore, from the evidence on record adduced by both sides it is to be observed that PW1 did not stay in the hospital of opposite party for 40 days as alleged. However he was visiting Dr. Uma Maheswara Rao (RW2) as an out patient. This is evidence from Ex.A-15 and A-16. While doing physiotherapy under RW3 also he was out patient living some where in Chinaravuru village. This is evident from the statement of RW3.

The swelling of the leg of PW1 appears to be natural in this kind of injuries. Aspiration of haematoma due to infection or otherwise is a part of treatment. They are no way unnatural or against the principles of medical standards. Absolutely, we do not find any medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in treating the complainant. Being an experienced doctor and having dealt with such kind of cases, the course of action adopted by RW1 in the treatment is no way unnatural or against the principles of medical standards. RW2 is specialized in orthopedic. He also found course of treatment given by PW1 on correct lines. Therefore, no negligence can be attributed in the treatment given to the complainant by the opposite party. However, we find some deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in maintaining the hospital record. The prescriptions given to PW1 do not bear the name of the patient and also signature of the doctor who has written. The opposite party has filed Xerox copy of case sheet. The original of it is said to have been produced long back before the Forum and Hon’ble Lady Member observed that all entries in it were made at a time and the book appears to be new one.

There is no discharge summary on record. It is apparent from the circumstances of the case that RW1 did not handover the discharge summary to the complainant at the time of discharge. As per medical ethics the patient have every right to know from his doctor the kind of ailment he is suffering from, the kind of treatment/surgery if any contemplated, duration of the treatment etc. For this purpose, the doctors and hospital authorities are bound to maintain record and handover to their parents. In such cases it is convenient for the Forum or any authority to fix up responsibility either on the doctor/hospital/patient concerned wherever negligence is attributed. On this aspect, National Commission and Apex Court time and again reiterated for proper maintenance of the record. In one such given case the following is observed,
“However, before concluding we wish to state that the Revision Petitioner did not maintain a proper written record of the treatment given by him and a rationale for giving such treatment. Hence, to that extent there is deficiency in service.”


Dr.Paramjit Singh Grewal and another vs. Charanjit Singh Chawla,
Therefore, we feel it appropriate to direct the opposite party to pay reasonable amount of compensation and we fix the sum at Rs.10,000/-. The point is answered accordingly.


POINT No.2:-

The opposite party has alleged that the claim made by the complainant is barred by limitation. According to the opposite party, the complainant left the clinic after treatment in the month of May, 1999 and this dispute is raised on 28-1-2002 as such it is barred by limitation. In this regard the learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon,Mr. Alok Kumar Mukherjee & Anr. Vs. Dr. Tapas Roy Chowdhury 2006 (1) CPR 182 (NC), it is observed that When appellant had come to know of old surgery in the year 1997 itself but the complaint was filed in the year 2005 about 7 or 8 years gap, it is clearly barred by limitation of 2 years U/S 24 A of C.P.Act, 1986.


In the instant case, the complainant submits that he gained knowledge about neglected treatment when he had been to Dr. P. Rangachari a senior arthopedician in the year 2000 as such he has filed this complaint in the year 2002. It is observed that the complainant had approached number of doctors for the complications arose to his leg, such as suffering from pain, stiffness of knee joint etc and for that purpose he took last advise from Dr. T. Rangachari in the year 2000 and filed this complaint against the opposite party in 2002 claiming compensation. Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint is no way barred by limitation.


In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with proportionate costs in the following terms:

1. The complainant has failed to establish medical negligence on the part of the opposite party and we hold that the opposite party has not committed any act of neglected and careless treatment and the same is no way opposed to the medical profession.

2. However, we find deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not maintaining proper medical record in respect of treatment given to the complainant. On this count we direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant.

3. We also further direct the opposite party to pay costs of litigation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant and bear his own costs.

4. The aforesaid amounts shall be paid within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, it shall carry interest @9% p.a.,