- (1.)For the injury sustained in his right leg in a motor accident, on 24.6.1990 the complainant took treatment from the opposite party doctor on 1.7.1990. On that day, his leg was amputated from the thigh. According to the complainant, the Doctor sent him on 30.8.1990 advising him to have an artificial leg fixed at the Government Rehabilitation Centre, K. K. Nagar, Chennai. He was admitted there on 30.9.90, but they could not fix the artificial leg and therefore they discharged him on 18.7.92. Then on 30.6.93, Dr. Mohandas gave a certificate that it was not possible to fix him with an artificial leg. According to the complainant, he was informed by the said Dr. Mohandas that during such operations, usually some length of bone would be left behind, and since sufficient length of bone was not left in his leg while amputating the artificial leg could not be fixed. This happened because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Dr. C. Subramanian. On account of this the complainant has suffered sufferings and extreme hardship and his life has become meaningless. On these allegations the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation.
(2.)The opposite party filed a written version inter alia contending that the complaint is barred by limitation and the operation has been done with all care and caution and under proper medical care, and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
(3.)When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, as a preliminary point submitted that the com- plaint is clearly barred by limitation and that being the position, the Commission need not go into the merits of the case. On carefully considering the matter, it appears to us that the submission of the learned Counsel has great force.