A KUMAR Vs. HINDU MISSION HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant was working as a helper. In the course of his employment, he was involved in an accident where an iron rotation motor fell on his right leg below the knee resulting in fracture of the same. The complainant was taken to the Hindu Mission Hospital at Tambaram. The complainant's case is that at that time, the staff nurse intersed the needles in the artery while administering I. V. fluid in the right wrist portion and as a result of which the blood started gushing up the tube and this is clearly negligence and inefficiency and on account of the same, the complainant's two fingers and right index finger became necrotic and gangrene set in as a result of which they had to be removed. Therefore, claiming compensation the complaint had been laid.

(2.) The Lower Forum dismissed the complaint and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the complainant.

(3.) The complainant has stated in the complaint as follows: The staff nurse inserted the needles, probably not in the veins but in the arteries at the right wrist portion, as a result of which, instead of glucose dripping from the tube, blood started gushing up the tube. Therefore, from this very statement made in the complaint, it is obvious that the complainant is not sure as to what happened and he is only guessing that the staff nurse had probably inserted the needle while administering the I. V. fluid in the artery instead of in the veins. It is really an unfortunate case where the complainant had lost two of his fingers and a right thumb. But, because of that fact, one cannot find the opposite party guilty unless we have some materials to conclude that there has been deficiency and negligence on the part of the opposite party. The complainant admits that he was admitted for the fracture of his leg and the fracture was treated properly and that he was cured and there was fusion of the fractured bones in the right leg within four weeks and the complainant has been able to walk. Therefore, he has no grievance as against the opposite party with regard to the treatment given to him for the fracture sustained by him and from the very allegations made in the complaint, we find that he has been satisfied with the treatment and that the fracture had become all right with the fusion of bones taking place and the complainant now being in a position to walk.