P.RAMASWAMY, B.SC.,M.B.,B.S.,D.I.H Vs. D.RAMAR
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2008-4-24
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 02,2008

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The Opposite party in COP No.36/2004 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Srivilliputhur is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: - On 22/11/2003 he met with an accident in which a two wheeler hit him and sped away. He suffered fracture on his right hand above the elbow. He approached the opposite party. The opposite party, after investigation, told him that surgery had to be done on his right hand by fixing a six-slot plate and that the procedure would cost Rs.17,000/-. The complainant paid the amount to the opposite party. The opposite party performed the surgery. The complainant was discharged on 2/12/2003. The complainant also took the medicines as prescribed by the opposite party. In spite of the surgery the problem was not solved and the fractured bone did not join properly and was protruding outside. On 8/2/2004 the complainant approached the opposite party and asked for rectifying the problem. The opposite party did not come forward to do any further treatment to the complainant. The complainant caused a notice to be issued through a lawyer which provoked a response from the opposite party denying any liability. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.3 lakhs.
(2.) The opposite party filed a version contenting inter-alia as follows:- It was not true to say that the complainant suffered a fracture in an accident in which a two wheeler hit him and sped away. Four months prior to the complainant meeting the opposite party, he had some problem and he took native treatment and since there was no progress he had approached the opposite party and got treated. The surgery was performed by Dr.Ambalatharasan on 23/11/2003 by open reduction with internal fixation and bone grafting was done. Dr.Ashok was the anaesthetist. The surgery was successful. After the surgery there was a check X-ray done which showed that the bones had rejoined. The complainant did not pay Rs.17,000/- as stated in the complaint. He paid only Rs.8,500/- and promised to pay the balance after discharge. It was not correct to say that the opposite party discharged the complainant on 2/12/2003. The complainant without paying the balance amount and without heeding to the advice of the opposite party left the hospital and absconded. The opposite party had also given a complaint to the Police on 2/12/2003. It was false to say that he met the opposite party on 8/2/2004 and that the opposite party refused to give him treatment. It was not true that after the surgery the bones did not join. That could have happened, if at all, at the time of removing the plaster cast or by changing of screw before the bones had joined. If it had so happened the opposite party could not be held liable. The complainant had not followed the instructions given by the opposite party. The opposite party had done everything good a surgeon could do. There was no deficiency in service.
(3.) Before the District Forum, on the side of the complainant Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked while on the side of the opposite party Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.