AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member
The present Revision Petition has been filed by Bakshi Ortho & Maternity Centre, (through its Proprietor Dr. H.S. Bakshi) under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) against the impugned Order dated 09.05.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1869 of 2009 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein against the judgment dated 11.11.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”).
The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
The Opposite Party appealed in the State Commission, same was dismissed.
Being aggrieved, the Opposite Party filed this Revision Petition.
Heard the arguments from both the sides. Perused the record.
The crucial issue arises in this case whether the Opposite Party treated the Complainant negligently and carelessly during 11.04.2007 to 27.05.2007.
The case of Complainant Kulwant Singh that on 12.04.2007, Dr. H.S. Bakshi T (the Opposite Party) operated him for fracture of right ankle bone and discharged on 14.04.2007. Thereafter, wound got infected showing large quantity of pus and the skin was damaged. It was alleged that Dr. Bakshi negligently treated him and was no proper follow up advised but, just told that infection would heal with time. Therefore on 29-5-2007 the complaint consulted Dr. Vijay Obed, the specialist at CMC Medical and Hospital, Ludhiana wherein it was opined that Dr. Bakshi committed gross negligence during operation and thereafter, worsened the condition and developed infection.
The Complainant repeatedly admitted and treated at CMC during 14.07.2007 to 13.12.2008. It was alleged that he was still on rich and special diet and had to spend a lot on transportation, tests and operations.
Being aggrieved the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint in the District Forum claiming a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.
The case of the Opposite Party that the Complainant had not produced any prima facie evidence to support his complaint. The patient was never treated for any fracture of the ankle bone as alleged. The patient was admitted with infected wound over Achilles tendon the back of ankle region. He was a known Diabetic under medication. On 12.04.2007, Dr. Bakshi performed wound debridement under GA and dressing was done it and subsequently he was discharged. He was advised skin grafting procedures from some plastic surgeon. On 14.07.2007, he was admitted in the CMC Hospital, Ludhiana under the care of Dr. V. Obed. On examination, revealed the patient was a known case of Diabetes Mellitus and pressure of wound (6X2 cm) left Tendo-Achilles region due to trauma. There was no fracture as claimed. On his admission records of 10.09.2007, it was mentioned as “wound right head (heel) region” whereas the injury initially treated was on his left tendo-achilles for which a separate operation of STSG under GA was done on 11.09.2007 by Dr. V. Obed. He was admitted in the CMC Ludhiana on 03.12.2008 with some problems relating to the wound over the LEFT Tendo-Achilles for which he was operated there under Dr. V. Obed for Bi-pedicle Flat Coverage under GA on STSG.
It is pertinent to note that, the Complainant never had any fracture of the ankle bone and never treated for the same in OP’s Hospital. Patient was admitted in Bakshi Hospital with infected wound of 15-20 days old over the back of the ankle, in the region of Achilles Tendon. He was known Diabetic. After proper lab investigations wound debridement was done under GA on 12.04.2007. He was discharged on 14.04.2007. If it would have been operated fracture of the ankle bone, he could not have been discharged on just 3rd day. In our view, the Petitioner as per standard of practice had treated the wound. Due to regular dressing the wound became healthy for the skin grafting. From the the records of CMC Hospital, Ludhiana it is clearly evident that complainant had traumatic wound on left Tendo-Achilles region since 2 months. There was no fracture which was confirmed by Dr. V. Obed that the patient was not suffering from any fracture.
On careful reading of Orders of both the Fora (District Forum & State Commission) appears to be erroneous on the facts and evidence.
The District Forum simply on assumption derived its conclusion and held that opposite party no.1 while managing wound of the complainant took the professional obligation in a most causal manner as well as he failed to give details not only on the prescription slip but also on the history sheet, managed and prepared regularly in the Hospitals. It was further observed that
“It is a common phenomenon among the doctors that they always refrain from making any comment as a professional brotherhood for the treatment given by their predecessor and successor,”
Similarly the State Commission in its Order observed as under:
“No doubt that OP No 1 is M.S. Ortho, therefore, he has sufficient qualification to diagnose the nature of the wound and what type of treatment was required in such a wound. Although high standard may not be required from such a Doctor but atleast reasonable diagnoses was required from the Doctor, who was having the degree of M.S. Ortho, which was certainly lacking in the case of OP No. 1. Although Dr. Vijay Obed, had not specifically pointed out anything about the treatment given by OP No. 1 but he has also not stated that the treatment and diagnose given by OP No. 1 was the correct one. It can be said that CMC is a very reputed hospital, therefore, such a treatment can be handled in that hospital with latest technology but in case any Doctor was not in a position to properly diagnose the treatment then he should not admit the patient and merely refer the same to other hospital having such an arrangement. The Doctors do charge their hefty fees but when it comes to the question of treatment then they have a casual approach towards the patient, therefore, we are of the opinion that the findings so returned by the learned District Forum are correct findings. We affirm the same”.
We have carefully perused an affidavit of Dr.Vijay Obed, the Professor and Head Department of Plastic Surgery of CMC and Hospital, Ludhiana. He also stated that the Patient was presented with wound over the tendo-achilles area and the wound was infected which needed dressings. During the period 14.07.2007 to 13.12.2008 the patient was repeatedly admitted in CMC and treated for the infected wound. Also underwent multiple surgeries and got done one surgery-skin grafting. He categorically stated that patient was not suffering from any fracture. It is correct that the operation had to be done three times because the wound was not responding to the treatment become of infection and break down. According to him there was no negligence on part of the previous doctors who treated the patient.
Based on the discussion above, we find material irregularity in appreciation of facts and by the fora below which deserves exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction of this commission. In the instant case there was no fracture of ankle bone at all, but it was a case of injury and infection of Tendo-Achilles was treated with regular debridement and dressing. The OP-2 was a qualified Orthopedic Surgeon (MS), who treated the patient as per standards. There was negligence in the duty of care. The patient was known diabetic, therefore wound healing takes more time. Thus “No Cure is Not Negligence” as long as doctor treats the patient with reasonable standards. After that, the patient was further referred to higher centre to the Plastic Surgeon.
Based on foregoing discussions, the Revision Petition is allowed, the Order of State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint filed before the District Forum is dismissed.
However, there shall be no orders as to costs.