S G NAREGAL Vs. JANGLISAB M BALANNAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE OP Doctor aggrievedby the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad, in complaint No. 348/2003 dated 26.11.2007 has filed this Appeal. We shall refer to the parties according to their ranks before the District Forum.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: The complainant was a patient of the OP and received treatment from the OP as in -patient from 22.7.2002 for 9 days. As he was suffering from severe pain in his leg, he approached OP for medical assistance. As per the advice, opinion and assurance of the OP, he had agreed to get his leg operated. As per the advice and assuracne of the OP, he had undergone treatment and operation. He was subjected to various lab tests and scan repdrts before the operation. After considering all those reports, he was operated by OP. After the operation, he was discharged from the Hospital. After discharge, he had some pain with his legl and on 2.8.2002 i.e., after discharge, pain increased. He has again approached OP who inturn put him on post -operative treatment. Even after the post -operative treatment, his pain never reduced. He had been unnecessarily made to spent a sum of Rs. 27,500 by OP. Thereafter he consulted another Doctor by name Dr. S.P.Baligar Hospital of Hubli. Dr. S.P. Baligar subjected him to various tests and scans and advised to undergo operation with an opinion that earlier operation was done elsewhere and it was improper. He underwent second operation on 15.8.32002 i.e. within 25 days after first operation. The second operation costed him Rs. 30,673. He had been subjected to undergo operation by OP though the OP was not competent to operate and to give result as assured. He had to undergo 2 operations as the first one was not properly done. Therefore, he was subjected to long time treatment and 2 operations have resulted loss of his job in private company. He was also subjected to mental agony and financial loss. He wrote to OP on 28.6.2003 asking him to pay compensation. Though initial talks were held in this regard, it did not yield any result. The OP replied notice of 11.7.2003 wherein he disowned responsibility to pay the compensation with certain excusses. Thereafter legal notice was issued to the OP and it was replied by the OP on 25.8.2003. Therefore, the complainant alleging deficiency of service claimed total compensation of Rs. 1,52,750. The District Forum considering the materials placed before it, accepted the case of the complainant and directed the OP to pay total compensation of Rs. 77,500 and costs of Rs. 1,000. The above order is under challenge by the OP in this Appeal.

(3.) WE have secured the records maintained by the District Forum. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.