RAJENDRA KUMAR GOSWAMI Vs. ARUN MADHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the 'district Forum' for short) in Complaint Case No.919/97 whereby the District Forum had dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are that the complainant is the father of the deceased Mukesh Goswami. The said Mukesh Goswami was a student of Class XI and had died due to negligent and careless treatment given by the opposite party doctor. Complainant's son suffered pain at the rear portion of his waist and was brought on 16.7.1997 to the orthopaedic surgeon i. e. , opposite party who advised for certain tests. On 19.7.1997 the doctor told the complainant after examining the C. T. scan report of Mukesh that there was growth in the spinal cord and the only option is to operate the same. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant told the doctor that he will go to his village on 30.7.1997 to arrange for the funds and also to consult other family members. It is alleged that the opposite party doctor carried out the operation without obtaining consent from the complainant and the complainant came to know of the same when he returned from his village. The opposite party told after operation that Mukesh would be well within a month. Complainant's son remained admitted in the Gayatri Hospital of the opposite party from 29.7.1997 to 9.8.1997 and total bill charged for the treatment was Rs.17,700. The opposite party had advised for checkup after 15 days. He again called him after further 15 days. However, the condition of the patient did not improve, it had rather deteriorated. It is further averred that when the complainant went with his son after a month of the operation he told the doctor that the patient had no relief rather his problem has further increased. On this the opposite party got annoyed and asked the complainant to take the complainant wherever he wished and did not give medical report, etc. Even despite demand. It is further averred that consequent to the operation the lower portion of the body of Mukesh was paralysed. Thereafter the patient was shown to the local doctors of Durg and they got him admitted to Government Hospital, Durg on 2.10.1997 and he remained in the hospital till 12.10.1997. Private doctors at Durg as well as doctors at the Government Hospital told that the patient was wrongly operated. As condition of the patient deteriorated the complainant took him to Sector 9, Bhilai but the patient could not be admitted at the said hospital as the opposite party had not given relevant medical reports. It is further averred that the opposite party doctor who carried out the operation is only an orthopaedic surgeon whereas such an operation was to be carried out by a neuro-surgeon. Gradually the condition of the patient deteriorated and ultimately he died on 17.11.1997. It is also averred that knowing fully well that he was not competent enough to conduct the operation, the opposite party had done so resulting in untimely death of his promising son. The complainant claimed damages on various counts to the tune of Rs.4,50,000 together with interest and costs.

(3.) The complainant had filed his own affidavit and had examined Dr. A. D. Urgaonkar, the doctor who treated Mukesh at the Government Hospital, Durg.