BHIM SINGH vs PREM KUMAR

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 14.6.2001 passed by District Forum, Panipat in Complaint Case No. 490 of 2000, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant -complainant against the opposite parties was dismissed.

THE facts as focussed in the complaint briefly stated are that the complainant had married daughter of Suraj Mal about 3 years ago and thereafter he has been living happily with his wife. However, his father -in -law wanted to re -marriage his daughter and was bent upon breaking his marriage. The complainant was working with Banti Thekedar. A dispute took place between him and Thekedar over the amount due to him. He claimed that a sum of Rs. 15,000 was due to the Thekedar and the Thekedar had maintained that he was only to pay Rs. 13,000 to him. The Thekedar threatened to teach a lesson to him on 20.3.1999. On 26.3.1999 Banti Thekedar, in the company of a person on a false pretext, took the complainant on his motor -cycle to his house where he was beaten mercilessly which resulted in fracture of his legs. He was also burnt with acid and thereafter he was thrown on a railway line in an unconscious condition so as to devise the story of a railway accident. The Railway Police took him to the Civil Hospital, Panipat and got registered a case against Banti bearing FIR No. 60 dated 2.4.1999 under Sections 323/324 read with Sections 34 of the IPC and Section 145 of the Railway Act. The complainant was referred to PGI but was taken to Prem Hospital, Panipat owned by Dr. Prem Kumar -opposite party No. 1. Both Banti and his father -in -law reached the spot and threatened to compromise the matter after receiving Rs. 40,000 from them and if he did not agree to do so, he would repent throughout his life. The complainant declined the offer made. They gratified Dr. Prem Kumar and persuaded him to amputate his both legs though by providing necessary medical treatment amputation could have been avoided by him. The complainant has to spend Rs. two lacs on his treatment. Threafter his father -in -law took his daughter with him in order to remarry her with a rich person. In this manner he had been deceived and rendered invalid in life. In these allegations he invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum claiming compensation amount of Rs. five lacs against the opposite party. The claim was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed several preliminary objections have been taken by him. It was pleaded that concocted and false story has been put up by the complainant in order to cause loss of his reputation, goodwill and harassment to him and that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands. He also claimed professional indemnity as he had insured himself with the Oriental Insurance Company vide policy bearing No. CH 227371 for the period 29.1.1999 to 28.1.2000. On merits, it was stated that tthe complainant has not given any beating or thrashing as alleged by him. It was further averred that the complainant was badly injured in a railway accident and thereafter was got admitted in the Civil Hospital, Panipat by Railway Police, Panipat. After one day of his hospitalizattion, the Incharge of the Civil Hospital was not able to give requisite treatment to him and for that reason recommended for his shifting to a hospital at Rohtak or Delhi. Thereafter, attendant of the complainant brought the complainant to his hospital where he was treated by the Bone Specialist and Orthopaedic Surgeon -Dr. Ritesh Singh, who is a qualified and experienced Orthopaedic Surgeon working in Lala Harbhagwan Dass Memorial and Prem Hospital, Panipat. As the complainant had showed signs of gangrene in affected portion where injuries were suffered by him and started emitting foul smell with blackening of muscles with danger of Toxaemia and poison extending to other parts of the body, he was admitted by Dr. Ritesh Singh and throughout the complainant remained under his treatment. Second opinion of famous Orthopaedic Surgeon -Dr. P.N. Gandhi was aslo obtained, who also suggested amputation of his legs. Accordingly, in order to save life of the complainant, amputation of his legs was done with the written consent of his brother, who had accompanied the complainant. On these premises, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

DURING the pendency of the complaint, Oriental Insurance Company was impleaded as opposite party No. 2. It contested the complaint on the plea that the complaint is based on criminal conspiracy and for that reason a professional indemnity cannot be invoked under the circumstances of the case. It further pleaded that both the legs of the complainant have been amputated as it had developed gangrene and in order to save his life and on that basis it maintained that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1. In rejoinder, the complainant reiterated his earlier pleas. On scrutiny of the evidence and pleading of the parties, the District Forum found no substance in the complaint and dismissed the same as per order dated 14.6.2001. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.

THE Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length. The allegations made in the complaint can be sub -divided into two parts. First part of the allegations relates to strained relations of the complainant with his father -in -law, who wanted to re -marry his daughter with somebody else and the controversy over the payment of due amount to the complainant by his contractor Banti, who stated to have connived with his father -in -law and taken him on the motor cycle to the house of Banti where he was given beating which resulted in fracture of his legs. It needs to be noticed here that there was diversion with regard to the manner in which the injuries have been suffered by the complainant as according to Dr. Prem Kumar the injuries were suffered by him in a railway accident. This part of the allegations have no correlation with regard to the complaint before the District Forum and even Suraj Mal and Banti have not been impleaded as perty in the present complaint.

IT is the admitted case of the complainant that initially he was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Panipat and from there he was taken to the Prem Hospital run and controlled by Dr. Prem Kumar -opposite party No. 1. His stand is that it was done in connivance with Dr. Prem Kumar by his father -in -law and contractor Banti. There is hardly any evidence to support the stand taken by the complainant in this regard except his own affidavit. Dr. Prem Kumar has stoutely refuted the allegations made against him in this regard.

THE reasons which prevailed Dr. Ritesh Singh to do amputation of the both legs of the complainant has been detailed in his affidavit in para Nos. 1 to 4 which are in the following terms: ''That the patient Bhima, son of Shri Gyani Ram, resident of village Kutani, District Panipat, was admitted on 29.3.1999 with multiple injuries as per M.L.R. No. PA/76/99 dated 28.3.1999 at Civil Hospital, Panipat. There was loss of skin from mid -thigh to ankle in left lower limb. Wounds were foul smelling, muscles were exposed and crushed. The bones were exposed at left ankle and over right forefoot. Toes of left lower limb were showing blackening. Wounds in both lower limbs were filled with sand. That prognosis regarding possible amputation of both the lower limbs, in writing, was explained to the attendants at the time of admission. We first tried to save the limbs and surgical toilet and debridgement of wounds of right and left lower limbs was done under anaesthesia on 29.3.1999 at 11.30 p.m. Patient was resuscitated and regular dressings of wounds were done at frequent intervals, but the condition of wounds did not improve. Patient became febrile and dehydrated and wounds of both lower limbs showed gangrenous changes with foul smell. That opinion of second Orthopaedic Surgeon (Dr. P.N. Gandhi) of Panipat was taken on 2.4.1999, who also advised mid -thigh amputation of left lower limb and mid -tarsal dis -articulation of right lower limb. We also advised attendants to take patient to Delhi or Rohtak, but they refused and gave in writing, in their own hand, informed consent for amputation of left and right lower limbs. That mid -thigh amputation of left lower limb and disarticulation of right ankle was done on 3.4.1999 at 12.45 a.m. to save the life of patient and to prevent Toxaemia. Dressing of wounds were done regularly and patient was discharged on request on 17.4.1999 with advice to follow up in OPD. That is how the life of a young man, who was given six bottles of blood and many bottles of IV Fluids and other medicines, was saved."

The treament record has also been placed on record in support of stand taken by him. Bed head ticket of the Civil Hospital record shows that Jai Bhagwan, brother of the complainant had initially taken his brother from the Civil Hospital on his free Will because he was dissatisfied with the treatment given to him there. Record of Lala Harbhagwan Dass Memorial and Prem Hospital clearly shows that on 29.3.1999 a writing was obtained from the brothers of the complainant Ramesh Chand and Subhash, who had certified that both the legs of their brother had turned black and in order to save him, they are required to be amputated and they expressed their consent and agreed that his life be saved.Thus before undertaking amputation of both the legs of the complainant, necessary information was provided to his nearest relation and were also informed about the line of treatment to be given to him. The primary duty required of Dr. Ritesh Singh has been done by him. The nature of the treatment given in the hospital of opposite party No. 1 under the supervision of Dr. Ritesh Singh cannot be doubted. It is clearly brought out that gangrene had developed in both the legs of the complainant and in order to save his life, amputation of both the legs was done. On the other hand, no effort has been made from the side of the complainant to lead any expert evidence in order to dislodge the evidence led from the side of the opposite party No. 1. Under the circumstances of the case, the complainant has failed to establish that his legs were amputated due to the negligence of the opposite party No. 1 and for that reason Dr. Prem Kumar and Dr. Ritesh Singh cannot be held to be deficient in service in giving treatment to the complainant. In the face of above stated evidence, the order of the District Forum does not call for any interference.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, there being no merit in the appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed.