INSTRUMENTS ORTHOPAEDICS Vs. P.GOVERDHAN REDDY
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
MAMATA LAKSHMANNA,MEMBER -
(1.) THIS appeal is filed by
opposite party No. 1 (C.D. No. 1433/1993, District Forum, Hyderabad) C.D.
No. 178/1997 on the file of District Forum, Rangareddy District.
(2.) THE complainant, who is a lecturer, in Government College met with an accident and was admitted in Vijaya Hospital, Dilsukhnagar,
Hyderabad. He was treated by Dr. Ramu, Orthopaedic Surgeon who after
X -ray advised an operation for which the complainant purchased nail and
plate from opposite party No. 2 on 21.1.1993 for Rs. 805.45 from sales
executive of opposite party No. 1. The surgery was performed on
21.1.1993, nail and plate were fixed and he was advised to take bed rest for three months but within a week, he developed severe pain in the
fractured leg and Dr. Ramu advised him to take another X -ray. The problem
was diagnosed as loose nail, hence he was operated again on 23.2.1993 at
Apex Hospital, Malakpet by the same doctor and the screw was tightened.
However, he developed severe pain after a week and got admitted in Apollo
Hospital under the treatment of Dr. Jairam Pingali, Orthopaedic Surgeon.
After investigations, it was found that the œscrew was broken due to
defect in casting of the plate and nails of the material and
therefore, he was reoperated on 16.3.1993. Dr. Jairam Pingali removed the
broken S.P. nail and the plate and fixed the œdynamic hip screw, DHS
imported and he had to stay for a week in the hospital. The
complainant, therefore, alleged that due to the defective material of the
first opposite party sold by the second opposite party, he had to suffer
and also incurred heavy loss and go through mental agony. He had to be on
leave from 21.1.1993 to 30.3.1993 and hence suffered loss of Rs. 19,980.
Dr. Ramu issued a certificate dated 23.3.1993 where he opined that the
screw was broken due to casting defect in the material and the same thing
was opined by Dr. Jairam Pingali. The complainant, therefore, contacted
opposite party No. 2 who assured that damages would be awarded. However,
since nothing came out of it, he issued notice on 20.4.1993 for which a
reply dated 7.5.1993 was issued denying any manufacturing defect and
asked the complainant to send the defective implant along with X -ray for
investigation in first opposite partys factory. The complainant however
did not comply as he was afraid that evidence would be destroyed and gave
reply to opposite party No. 1 on 18.5.1993 and filed the complaint for
recovery of Rs. 93,629/ - with interest at 18 per cent per annum.
(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 in its counter contended that the implant was used as an alternative to a plaster cast to keep the broken bone
motionless and neutralising the deforming forces acting on the fracture
site during action, hence bed rest is required for joining the bone.
Hence implant is not intended to bear any weight or strain of normal
working conditions. It also contended that there could be other reasons
for the problem, such as, that the implant should be used with extreme
caution and no undue weight or strain should be put on cast otherwise
there is a chance of breakage or failure. Secondly the plate and the
screw have to be mated perfectly with the bone, since different bones
have different sizes, curvatures and shapes and the standard plate must
then be bent during the operation by means of a special bending machine
so as to fit rigidly into the bone into which it is screwed. In the
present case the fracture was a complicated one and there were small
broken pieces of bone. In such cases usually the Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS)
is used and not the M.C. Laughlin plate with S.P. Pin as was used in the
case of the complainant which was finally done by Dr. Jairam Pingali. It
also alleged that in the ordinary course once the implant is fixed into
the bone, it would not become loose, unless it has been wrongly fitted or
there is excess strain put on it, as in the present case the pin had to
be tightened a second time and after that it was found to be broken. The
pin is made of high quality AISI 316 stainless steel and hence there was
no question of breakage due to casting defect as no part of implant is
cast and hence there is no deficiency of service.
Opposite party No. 2 filed its counter that he was not a necessary party as he was only a Sales Executive.
On behalf of the complainant, Dr. Ramu, filed his affidavit, for which a counter affidavit is filed by Mythili Iyer, Marketing Manager of the first opposite party. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.