- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.9.2002 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar allowing in total compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/ - to the claimant Sh. Sukhpal Singh.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Shri Sukhpal Singh suffered a fracture of leg femor (Kullha) on 17.10.99. On the same date, he approached opposite party (Appellant) Dr. Shree Mohan of Paras Nursing Home, Rurki for treatment. The complaint remained hospitalised there from 17.10.99 to 29.10.99 for 13 days. On 29.10.99, the appellant took an x -ray and told that he is being relieved today from the Nursing Home. The complainant shall be kept in traction at the residence for 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, the traction shall be removed. On 29.10.99 the appellant accompanied the complainant to his house and the traction was given with a direction to keep the weight in the same position. The complainant followed the direction. On 7.1.2000, after complete rest of 12 weeks, the complainant came to the nursing home of the appellant. He was x -rayed and it was informed that the bones have united properly. The appellant advised exercise. The complainant remained in the treatment of the appellant till 10.4.2000. He consumed all the medicines as directed by the appellant but he felt that his leg has been shortened and there is constant pain. The appellant told that it is nothing. The leg shall come to its normal position and pains shall also stop. But when there was constant pain, on 21.4.2000, the complainant approached Dr. Arvind Saharan of Rurki who measured the leg and told that it had shortened by one inch and the leg is united with wrong angle. There is a gap in the bone. When Dr. Arvind Saharan told like this, the complainant again met the appellant on 29.4.2000. The appellant told that the leg of the complainant has shortened by half inch. He will have to use a shoe of high heel. The appellant gave some further medicines but when there was no result, he again consulted Dr. Arvind Saharan on 16.5.2000 and 17.6.2000. Dr. Arvind Saharan told to consult some other doctor if the complainant so wishes. On 8.7.2000, the complainant consulted Dr. Himanshu Kumar and Dr. U. C. Jain of Saharanpur. They told that there has not been proper treatment. On 27.10.2000, the complainant went to Dr. S. P. Gupta of Meerut and he informed that the bone has mal United. It was a case of operation and he informed the expenses of operation to be Rs. 50,000/ -.
(3.) IT is alleged by the complainant that he is a lawyer by profession. He has suffered loss in his profession. He has spent amount as mentioned in para 11 of the Complaint. He further alleged that due to the negligence of the appellant, his leg has been shortened. He claimed compensation for that. He prayed for total compensation of Rs. 3.00,000/ -. The appellant filed the written statement and admitted the fracture. It is alleged in para 2 that the complainant advised for operation but for that purpose, the complainant was not ready to get operation at Rurki or any other place out of Rurki as there were chances of heavy expenses in operation. The complainant told that he is not able to get operation. Therefore, he prayed that the treatment should be done without operation. Even in the prescription, he has advised for operation. Regarding the advice by Dr. S. P. Gupta for Meerut, the appellant stated that he has initially advised for operation but his advice was not accepted (para 9 of the written statement). It is alleged that the appellant did not take any consultation fee and the amount as paid has incorrectly been shown excessive. In the additional pleas, it was pleaded that the complainant is a lawyer by profession and inspite of written advice, he did not get operation. It appears that there was another accident by which the union of the bone, had reopen. The complainant is a Vakil and is short of money and therefore out of greed, he has filed this complaint. He has alleged that he is a known Orthopedic Surgeon and has served in All India Medical Institute, Delhi; Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi; P.G.I. Chandigarh and has examined treated and operated several patients with complicated operations. He has also claimed compensation for his harassment.;