Date of Filing: 11-07-2014                                               Date of Final Order: 04-10-2016

Smt. Runa Ganguly, President-In-charge.

The factual matrix of this case is that on 30/11/2013 the Complainant fell down from his motor cycle at Hamiltonganj and accordingly he went to Dr. Balbant N.S. Laguri, i.e. O.P. No.1, on the same day with complaints of severe pains in his left arm. After examination, the O.P. No.1, advised him to undergo ORIF (Open Reduction Internal Fixation) & plating for proper reunion of the bone and accordingly, the Complainant got admitted in Sun Shine Nursing Home, Cooch Behar i.e. the O.P. No.2 on the same day. The Complainant  deposited a package fee of Rs.46,557/- to the O.Ps for the said surgery which includes the cost of the surgery, post-operative care as also expenditure on medicines.On 01/12/2013 the surgery i.e. ORIF & plating was performed by the O.P. No.1, Dr. Balbant N.S. Laguri for proper reunion of the bone. Dr. Laguri informed the Complainant's family members that the operation was successful. The Complainant/patient was discharge from the said nursing home on 04/12/2013 and Dr. Laguri prescribed some medicines for post operational healing.

By taking and using such medicines prescribed by Dr. Balbant N.S. Laguri, the O.P. No.1, the Complainant did not get experienced the comfort of complete cure and continued to experience the pain of the surgical site and as also fever at times. Therefore, the Complainant reported this aspect to the O.P. No.1, several occasions i.e. on 31/12/2013, 30/01/2014 and 01/03/2014, respectively, who explained it away that the pain being experienced is nothing abnormal in a post operation phase and that it will automatically stop with the passage of time and gave some medicines and tests after doing so his condition did not improve.

Meanwhile, the O.P. No.1, issued a Medical Certificate it revealed that the Complainant/patient is now fit resume his light duties from 03/03/2014, but the Complainant's condition began deteriorated gradually and tremendous pain in surgical site, he could barely move his left hand after four months of the surgery, as a result her condition became very serious. Accordingly the Complainant again visited to the O.P. No. 1, i.e.Dr. Balbant N.S. Laguri on 07/04/2014. After normal check-up O.P. No.1, advised to the Complainant for X-Ray in his left handafter doing the same according to the O.P. No.1 it was found in the X-ray report that “fracture of shaft of humerus with  fixation plate in situ”, for which the Complainant became anxious much and sustained immense mental agony.

The Complainant further stated that, due to lack of ordinary care and skill at the time of ORIF & Plating by the O.P. No.1 & 2, the Complainant's surgical site L. Humerus shaft non-union with implant insitu and also the O.P. No. 1 & 2, did not take any pre-operative and post- operative care at the time of the said surgery for proper reunion of the bone.

After receiving the said X-ray report, the Complainant himself and his family members finding no other alternative rushed to start at Kolkata, on 26/04/2014 for reviving from acute pain and proper reunion of the bone in his left hand i.e. surgical site. On 28/04/2014, the Complainant consulted with Dr. Vikash Kapoor, in the Medica Superspeciality Hospital, Kolkata and the said doctors had to undergo several tests and diagnosis that“Site Not in Apposite”and also advised to the Complainant for surgery (i.e. Removal of implates & ORIF & Bone grafting) for proper reunion of the bone but because paucity of funds the Complainant come back at Cooch Behar on 28/04/2014, without surgery.

Afterwards, on 06/05/2014 the Complainant went to Hariom Nursing Home at Patna for reviving from acute pain and proper reunion of the bone in his left hand i.e. surgical site. On 07/05/2014 the Complainant consulted with Dr. R.K. Khandelwal and others doctors in the said Nursing Home at Patna and the said doctors had to undergo several tests and diagnosis that “Non-Union L. humerus with broken implants” and the Complainant admitted in the said hospital on the same day.On 08/05/2014 Dr. R.K. Khandelwal and others doctors performed “Implant removal, Plating (DCP) & bone Grafting Lt. Humerus” and after surgery he had to incurred a great deal of pain as well as expenditure on his treatment. The Complainant remained in the said nursing home from 07/05/2014 to 17/05/2014.

By such of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 & 2 and also due to lack of ordinary care and skill at the time of ORIF &Plating by the O.Ps, the Complainant would be suffered various disorder or problems in his body in future. The Complainant also suffered from irreparable loss, mental pain & agony and huge monitory loss i.e. Nursing Home Charges at Cooch Behar, Kolkata and Patna of Rs.1,27,394/- in total (Rs.46,557/- + Rs.1,310/- + Rs.79,527/-) and Miscellaneous expenditure at Cooch Behar to Kolkata and Cooch Behar to Patna.

Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to pay (i) Rs.1,00,000/- for medical negligence and deficiency in service, (ii) Rs.2,02,394/- (Rs.1,27,394/- + Rs.75,000/-) for Nursing Home Charges at Cooch Behar, Kolkata and Patna and Miscellaneous expenditure at Cooch Behar to Kolkata and Cooch Behar to Patna, (iii) Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony, irreparable loss, harassment and (iv) Rs.10,000 /- towards litigation cost, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.

The O.P. No.1, Dr. Balbant N.S Laguri, Cooch Behar and the O.P. No.2, Sun Shine Nursing Home, Cooch Behar have contested the case by filing W/V denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.Ps is that The O.P. No.1, Dr. B.N.S Laguri asserts that he is a surgeon having Master Degree in Orthopedic and is a well known reputed Orthopedic Surgeon and practicing as such at Cooch Behar with unblemished carrier. The Complainant namely Biswajit Dey came to the O.P. No.1 on 30/11/2013 at OPD with a history of high velocity trauma (injury) caused by motorbike accident sustaining injury over left arm. On examination and on causing X-Ray of arm it was found that he had fracture shaft of humerus of left arm. On thorough examination he was advised to undergo operative treatment i.e. Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (Steel Plate Fixation) as per standard prescribed Orthopedic procedure and the Complainant party conceded to such operation and thereafter the Complainant underwent surgery at Sunshine Nursing Home, Cooch Behar on 01/12/2013. The said surgical operation was uneventful and there was no complication whatsoever on the part of the patient and the patient had an uneventful recovery and he was discharged from the said nursing home on 04/12/2013 in a stable condition with appropriate advised and medical prescription. At the time of discharge the patient was advised for regular monthly follow up and regular X-ray check up and after his release he again paid his visit on 11/12/2013 for removal of the stitch and thereafter he attended the OPD on 31/12/2013, 30/01/2014 and 01/03/2014 as directed and in all such dates there was no complication at all. It is denied by the O.Ps that after operation the patient experience severe pain at the surgical side along with fever at times as alleged by the Complainant. Had there been any such symptom the patient should have attended the OPD at frequent intervals and he could not have resume light duties on and from 03/03/2014. One month later after resuming his duties the Complainant came to this O.P on 07/04/2014 for check up when an X-ray was done over the affected part which revealed “fracture of shaft of Humerus with fixation plate in situ” which is considered to be normal report after surgery. In the said X-ray report there has been no mention of any abnormality like non-apposition of bone or any non-reunion. Any statement contrary to this what have been stated in the complaint petition are emphatically denied by this answering O.Ps.

On 07/04/2014 as per X-ray as well as the X-report of Medica Super Speciality Hospital there was no mention of broken Implant (Steel Plate). Steel Plate are meant in such way that they don't break easily until unless some subsequent trauma (injury) occurs or if the patient does a very heavy work with the affected part before the union the bones which usually takes 3 to 4 months time and even longer in case of -Initial High Velocity Injury — Smokers, Diabetics — Immuno Compromised Patient etc. It has been alleged by this O.Ps that treatment under went by the Complainant at Hariom Nursing Home, Patna on the month of July, 2014 revealed that there was non-union of humerus with broken implant for which the Complainant further underwent surgery which clearly suggested that it is the negligence on the patient part that he did not follow the advice given to him properly or might had a subsequent injury for which he suffered for non-union and breakage of implant in which this answering O.P had nothing to do nor he can be blamed in any manner. It is emphatically denied by this answering O.Ps that there was wrong treatment and lack of ordinary care and skill at the time ORIF and Plating as alleged by the Complainant. The operation performed by this answering O.P was all together uneventful and perfect and there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of this answering O.Ps.

The O.P. No.1 & 2 further stated in their W/V that there was no negligence whatsoever on the part of this answering O.Ps in the treatment of the Complainant. It is emphatically denied that this answering O.Ps have not taken any pre-operative and post-operative care upon the Complainant. There was no medical negligence and deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant. Therefore, there was no negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for which in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief/relieves nor any compensation from the O.Ps.

Ultimately, the O.P. No.1& 2 prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.

In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

5. Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
5. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
5. Have the Opposite Parties any medical negligence towards the patient during or pre and post operative period of ORIF surgery?
5. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

We have gone through the record very carefully. Perused the entire documents in the record with evidence on affidavit of the Complainant and O.P. No. 1 who also deposes on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and also heard the argument as advanced by the parties at length.

Point No.1.

Evidently, the ORIF surgery of the Complainant Sri Biswajit Dey performed by the O.P. No.1, Dr. B.N.S Laguri,(Orthopedic Surgeon) at the Sun Shine Nursing Home i.e. the O.P. No.2, Cooch Behar on receiving certain payment.                                                                                           

So, relation between the Complainant and the O.P. No. 1 & 2 so  established from the record, we can be safely concluded that the Complainant is consumer under the O.Ps, U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No.2.

The complainant in this case has claimed Rs.3,87,394- in total under different heads which is less than the pecuniary limit of this Forum. The complainant has brought this case against the Opposite Parties, are resident/carried on business in this district i. e. under Kotwali P.S, Cooch Behar which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

In our view, this Forum has sufficient jurisdiction i.e. pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant case.

Thus, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.3 & 4.

            It is the case of the Complainant that on 30/11/2013 he fell down from his motor cycle and accordingly went to Dr. Balbant N.S. Laguri on that day with severe pain in his left arm. After examination, the O.P. No.1 advised him to undergo ORIF (Open Reduction Internal Fixation) and plating for proper reunion of the bone and accordingly, the Complainant got admitted in the O.P. No.2, Nursing Home for the said surgery and paid a package fee of Rs.46,557/- including all post operative treatment and cost of medicines. ORIF surgery was performed on 01/12/2013 for proper reunion of the bone by the O.P. No.1 and that was successful in the opinion of the O.P. No.1. Accordingly, the Complainant was discharged on 04/12/2013 and prescribed some medicines for healing the wound. After discharge from the Nursing Home, the Complainant did not feel comfort rather experienced the pain in the surgical site with fever. The Complainant thereafter contacted with the O.P. No.1 on 31/12/2013, 30/01/2014 & 01/03/2014. Thereafter the O.P. No.1 issued a fitness certificate on 03/03/2014 without any X-Ray though the condition of the Complainant became deteriorated and unable to move his left hand after four months of the surgery. The Complainant again contacted with the O.P. No.1 who after normal check-up prescribed some medicine and X-Ray was done on 07.04.2014 and reported by the consultant Radiologist on 26.04.2016 that reveals “fracture of shaft of humerus with fixation plate in situ but the Complainant felt pain in the operation site”.

Ultimately, the Complainant contacted with Dr. Vikash Kapoor of Medica Super Speciality Hospital, Kolkata and diagnosed “Site not in apposition” and advised for removal of implates & ORIF & bone grafting for proper reunion of bone but due to paucity of fund he came back and again went to Hariom Nursing Home at Patna admitted there on 07/05/2014, operation done on 08/05/2014 and discharged on 17/05/2014 with good condition. In the above episode, the Complainant had to face various harassment, mental agony along with unnecessary expenditure for which this case arise.

It is the case of the O.P. No.1that admittedly the Complainant was under his treatment on & from 30/11/2013 to 04/12/2013 and ORIF surgery done on 01/12/2013 with due care and followed the standard treatment. Subsequently, when the Complainant went to meet the doctor then there is no complication in the surgical portion of the Complainant for which he was discharged on 04/12/2013 in a stable condition.

On 11/12/2013 the stitch was removed and on 31/12/2013, 30/01/2014, 01/03/2014 visited the patient and no such complication noticed at all.

It is the further case of the O.P. No.1 that he gave fitness certificate with advice to do light duties on 03/03/2014. One month later the Complainant on 07/04/2014 again came to this O.P for check-up and accordingly an X-ray was done which revealed that “fracture of shaft of humorus with fixation plate in situ” which is considered to be normal report after surgery. There is no abnormality in the said report.

The X-ray report dated 07/04/2014 & 28/04/2014 there is no mention of broken Implant. The Complainant was restricted to do heavy work as the reunion of bones usually takes 3 to 4 months time and even more time in case of high velocity injury, smokers, diabetics, Immuno compromised patient etc. The Complainant might had a subsequent injury for which he suffered for non-reunion and breakage of implant for which the O.P cannot be blamed in any way. The operation performed by the O.P was uneventful and there was no negligence for which this case liable to be dismissed.

Annexure “A” reveals that the Complainant admitted in the Sun Shine Nursing Home, O.P. No.2 on 30/11/2013 under Dr. B.N.S. Laguri i.e. the O.P. No.1. The doctor diagnosed “fracture shaft of humerus left” and accordingly ORIF surgery done on 01/12/2013. The Complainant discharged on 04/12/2013 from the said Nursing Home with some medicines. It also reveals that stitch was removed on 11/12/2013 with an advice of X-ray.

Annexure “B” “B1” “B2” transpires that the Complainant was attended by the O.P doctor on several days though there is no note of the patient’s condition in the prescriptions which seems that the O.P. No.1 seen the patient in casual manner.

Annexure “C” is the medical certificate which reveals that the O.P. No.1 certified the Complainant as he is now fit to resume his light duties from 03/03/2014. The O.P. No.1 gave the fitness certificate without doing any X-Ray then how he opined/came in conclusion that the patient was fit for his light duties?

Annexure “C1” is the X-Ray report dated 26/04/2014 performed by Dr. Sanjeet Kr. Oram, M.D consultant Radiologist which reveals that “fracture of shaft of humerus with fixation plate in situ” though on perusal the X-ray plate, there is clear picture of non-union of bones even after 4^1/2months of the surgery.

Annexure “D” goes to show that the Complainant consulted Dr. Vikash Kapoor on 28/04/2014. Perusing the X-ray report dated 26/04/2014. Another X-ray was done on 28.04.2014 on perusal the X-Ray plates and the prescription of Dr.Vikash Kapoor  it reveals that “site not in apposition”.

Annexure “E” Series are the treatment particulars of advance Orthopedics and Trauma clinic Patna (Bihar). From those documents it appears that the Dr. R.K. Khandelwal on 07.05.2014 diagnosed non-union (Lt.) humerous shaft, screw breakage, Implant backout and accordingly surgery Implant removal, platting & bone grafting (L) Humerous done on 08/05/2014 patient was discharged on 17/05/2014 when wound healthy without any complication. After the surgery dated 08/05/2014, the Complainant recovered from ailment and had no complication.

From the above documents it is clear that the fracture bone of humerous shaft was not united after performing operation on 01/12//2013 by Dr. B.N.S. Laguri. Even after elapsing so many months, the Complainant felt discomfort with pain. Thus he moved to Patna and again treated under Dr. R.K. Khandelwal, M.S (Ortho), F.I.M.S (USA), D.N.B. Dr. Khandelwal is highly qualified doctor who in his prescription dated 07/05/2014 noted “non-union (Lt.) humerous shaft, screw breakage, Implant backout” and second operation “Implant removal, plating & bone grafting (L) humerous” performed by Dr. R.K. Khandelwal on 08/05/2014.

The prescription of Dr. B.N.S. Laguri and the prescription of Dr. R.K. Khandelwal go to show that Dr. R.K. Khandelwal more qualified for which we cannot deny the opinion of the said expert doctor who is also an Ortho Spinal surgeon.

During the course of argument the Ld. Agent of the O.P. No.1 vehemently argued that in the X-Ray report dated 07/04/2014 there is no whispering about non-union of the bone for which it presume that the Complainant might had a subsequent injury and so that he suffered for non-union and breakage of implant. He also argued that unless and until any subsequent injury/accident happened the implant cannot break easily. It is pertinent to mention that the O.P stated the said fact only assumption and the O.P did not proved the same by adducing any cogent documents.

In this premises, we attract the authority reported in 2012 (2) CCC 284 (NC), where Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that incase of medical negligence, a mere preponderance of probability would indict the guilty of profession. Inference as to negligence may be drawn from proved circumstances by applying the rule of Res Ipsa loquitor. In the case in hand the X-Ray plate dated 28.04.2014 And the prescription of Dr. Khandelwal are the documentary evidence to substantiate the negligence of treating doctor.

It is also the case of the Complainant that the O.Ps did not take proper care i.e. pre-operative and post-operative period. In the present case the O.Ps have not filed any scrap of paper regarding pre & post operation measures taken by them rather they relied upon the documents submitted by the Complainant which are nothing but Discharge Certificate and prescription of the O.P doctor. The O.Ps badly failed to produce total treatment particulars of the patient/Complainant also. In this premises,  Reliance has been placed upon ruling reported in (2004) 8 Supreme Court cases 56 held that –The burden lies on the hospital and the doctor concerned would who treated the patient to show that there was no negligence involved in the treatment. The Ld. Agent for the Complainant drew our attention to the internet copy of one medical literature (2012 Intermountain Health Care) which reveals that what measures shall have taken it the pre-operative & post-operative measures in a case of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Surgery (ORIF). We quoted from the said document as under :-

• Since broken bones are usually caused by Trauma or an accident an ORIF surgery is typically an emergency procedure before your surgery, you may have.
• Physical Exam – to check your blood circulation and nerves affected by the broken bone.
• X-ray, C.T. Scan or M.R.I. Scan – to evaluate the broken bone and surrounding structures.
• Blood tests.
• Tetanus shot – depending on the type of fracture and if your immunization is not current.
• Your pulse and the nerves close to the broken bone will also be cheeked.

In the post-operative stage the patient will begin physical therapy to learn how to move. It also clears from the said document that in a case of ORIF complete recovery usually takes 3 to 12 months. The doctor must recommend physical therapy during recovery. During stay at hospital/nursing home the doctor ought to have taken proper care at post operative stage that is totally absent in the present case for which the Complainant underwent further surgery.

In the present case, the Complainant underwent ORIF surgery conducted by the O.P doctor but the doctor failed to take pre-operative measures as per procedure of ORIF surgery. In this premises, the Complainant by swearing an affidavit stated that the O.P doctor did not follow the recommended procedure of ORIF surgery in pre-operative stage. In addition, we also do not find any report of X-ray, C.T. Scan/M.R.I. Scan to evaluate the broken bone and surrounding structures for performing the said operation (ORIF). In this juncture, reliance has been placed on a ruling reported in 2012 (2) CPR 52 (NC) filed by the Ld. Agent for the Complainant, where in it is held that non-conducting of pre-operative test which one necessary to decide fitness of the patient for undergoing major surgery is a glaring act of deficiency in service.

The Ld. Agent for the O.P. files following ruling on 03.10.16 as and when the date for delivery of F.O  is fixed on 04.10.16.

• 2014(3) CPR 80(NC), part 7 where in it was observed that “Merely because doctor one course of action in preference to other one available, he would not be liable if course of action chosen by him was acceptable to medical profession”. In the instant case Dr. Laguri was negligent enough only for not following the proceeding before ORIF surgery but also failed to take post operative care. Hence, this ruling is not applicable.
• 2012 (3) CPR112(NC), part 4 where in Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that- every medical failure is not medical negligence. In this contest we hold that in the present case the negligence of O.P. doctor is glaring.
• 2013 (2) CPR-815(NC), part 6. In the said case it was well proved by evidence that the complainant suffered from fall in the bathroom leading to DHS plate’s screws broken but in the present case no iota of evidence to establish the further injury caused broken implant as plea taken by the O.P. no 1.
• 2014(1) CPR-452(NC), part 2 and 2015(2) CPR -764(NC), 2015. On perusal the above rulings it appears that considering the facts and circumstances those are also not applicable in the present case.

The Hon’ble Supreme court discussed about duty of care in cases Achyut Rao Haribhai kodwas Vs. state of Maharastra and ors. and A.S. Mittal VS. State of U.P. In Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. Reported in 2005 (3) CPR 70(SC): 2005 6 SSC I: the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded: “A professional may be held liable on account two findings: either he was not possessed of requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise reasonable competence in given case, the skill which he did possess ”. In the case in hand evidently, the O.P. doctor did not exercise reasonable competence for which negligence in providing medical service is well established.

The Ld. Agent for the O.P. contended that there is no expert evidence. In our considered view, this was not necessary in the instant case as it is well settled in V. Kisan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital and Anr. Reported in 2010 CTJ 868 (SC) that in each case expert opinion is not necessary.

The Ld. Agent for the O.P doctor vehemently argued that the doctor performed operation and treated the patient what he think better for treatment but documents goes to show that the O.P doctor did not follow the actual procedure of ORIF surgery. Moreover, the O.P doctor issued Fitness Certificate on 03/03/2014 without any X-Ray as and when the patient was not in condition to move his hand. The X-ray plate dated 07/04/2014 clearly goes to show that non-union in the operation site. In the Discharge Certificate, there is no note of “uneventful” but he argued the same also stated in W/V and Evidence on affidavit.

The Ld. Agent for the O.P doctor filed a document namely “AAOS Ortho Info”. On perusal the said literature it appears that delay of reunion of bone depends upon some essential factor. A “delayed Union” is when a fracture takes longer than usual to heal. For bone healing to happen, the bone needs adequate stability and blood supply. Good nutrition also plays a role in bone healing. Older age, severe anemia, Diabetes are also the major factors for non-union or delayed union.

In the present case, the Complainant is not an old age, having no history of diabetes, anemia as no note regarding the said symptoms appeared in the prescription of Dr. B.N.S. Laguri, moreover, Dr. Laguri did not examined the patient properly before surgery. Thus, it is reasonably be presume that the O.P doctor performed surgery without due care and caution.

Thus, considering the above facts and materials, we are convinced to hold that the O.P doctor did not exercise the reasonable competence in this case, the skill which he possesses and did not advice Physiotherapy though the Complainant was visited by the O.P. No.1 with complain of pain. Also, nowhere the doctor has noted that the patient has got his motion. It is peculiar enough that the O.P. No.1 had given a Fitness Certificate and to allow him to do light work as and when mal-union established from the prescription dated 28/04/2014 and X-ray plate dated 28/04/2014 and dated 07/04/2014, we also find that the Complainant attended the O.P. No.1 on 31/12/2013, 30/01/2014, 01/03/2014 & 07/04/2014 so, it can be safely said that visiting of the O.P. No.1, Dr. Laguri, by the Complainant was not at all fancy and surprisingly, there is no note of present condition of the patient in the prescription of Dr. Laguri. Thus, considering the overall matter on record including procedure and management of treatment as adopted by the O.P. No.1 in pre-operative and post-operative stage, we convinced to hold that the O.P. No.1 did not apply his standard of skill and for which deficiency and negligent manner of service cannot be ruled out against the O.P. doctor.

In the light of forgoing discussion and materials made available in the record the allegation of medical negligence by the Complainant against O.P. doctor stands amply proved from evidence on record .Thus, the principle of Res-Ipsa-Locuitor is squarely applicable in view the decision taken in Jacob Mathew’s cases.

As the deficiency in service/medical negligence is already proved, the complainant is entitled to get relief. The complainant prayed for compensation along with total bill which he spent for two surgeries but in our view, the second surgery was inevitable for his full recovery. Thus, he is entitled to get only the claim for expenditure during the period of first operation. The Complainant files original bills on perusal the said bills it appears that the Complainant spent Rs. 46,857/- including medicines during surgery under O.P. No.1 and he is entitled to get the said amount. Besides, the complainant must be compensated for his mental agonies and harassment for underwent second operation only for negligent manner of service of the O.P. doctor and in our considered opinion Rs. 75,000/- will met the justice. It is pertinent to mention that the O.P. No. 1&2 files Evidence on affidavit jointly and from W/V it is clear that the O.P. No. 1 is the proprietor of Sun Shine Nursing Home i. e. O.P. No. 2. Thus, both are liable jointly and/or severally.

Hence,

          it is ORDERED that,

                       the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties with cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

The O.P.s are directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 46,857/- along with compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for their deficiency in service which caused mental pain and agony of the Complainant. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the Complainant by the O.P.s jointly and /or severally within 45 days from the passing of this order, in default, the O.Ps. shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited to the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.