NIVEDITHA ORTHOPEDIC CENTRE Vs. P.MALLESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.919/2004 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, opposite parties preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint was that the complainant met with an accident on 15-12-1999 at Kalwakurthy while she was travelling on a Hero Honda as pillion rider. The complainant was brought to opposite party No.2 who diagnosed fracture on the right hand requiring surgery and advised her to be admitted at Vani hospital on 16-12-1999 and conducted a surgery inserting a nail into the right humerus to facilitate the union of fractured bone and the complainant was discharged after 5 days. An x-ray was taken on the 5th day and it showed a gap between the bones but opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that there would be reduction in due course and advised to consult at opposite party no.1 hospital once every week. The complainant that there was pus formation within a fortnight after the surgery causing severe pain and on consultation, opposite party No.2 advised medication and assured recovery in due course. The complainant submitted that in the month of March, 2000, opposite party No.2 advised her to undergo Montoux test to rule out bone T.B. and though the report was negative, opposite party No.2 had administered 40 doses of Ambestrin and Rcinex tablets. The said treatment continued for 8 months during which periodic x-rays and culture sensitivity tests were conducted and there was no alleviation in pain. Unable to tolerate, the complainant sought advice from Dr.Jairam Pingle, who advised opposite party No.2 to remove the nail which was inserted during the time of surgery and accordingly the same was removed on 8-11-2000 and plaster of paris was applied and opposite party No.2 reassured her that union of bones would take place. The treatment continued for another three months and an x-ray, was taken on 21-1-2001, which revealed that the fractured bone was in the same condition as it was on the date of accident and thereafter opposite party No.2 referred her to consult Dr.Harisharma of Tapadia Diagnostic Centre for a surgical procedure Haziro which costs huge expenditure. The complainant submitted that she lost confidence on opposite party No.2 and hence approached Dr.Jairam Pingle at Apollo hospital on 14-6-2002 and he conducted a second surgery on the right humerous following the procedure of ORIF with DCP + Bone graft. The complainant submitted that following the second surgery, there was reduction in the right humerous fracture and the bone had healed in about four months. It is the complainants case that due to wrong procedure adopted by opposite party No.2, she was subjected to prolonged pain and suffering and she had to repeatedly commute between Kalwakurthy and Hyderabad, incurring lot of expenditure. She got issued a legal notice on 9-3-2003 and filed the complaint claiming Rs.3,00,000/- being the medical expenses incurred by her during the period from 15-12-1999 to 14-6-2002 together with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

(3.) In the version filed by opposite parties 1 and 2, opposite party No.2 admitted that he performed surgery on the complainant as per the universally accepted procedure of inter nail fixation of fractures. It is stated that the complainant was discharged earlier due to her request and that the complainant did not follow the instructions and advice given by him. Opposite party No.2 alleged that pus formation was a result of negligence by the complainant in not using the prescribed medicines and that pain and non-union of the bone are natural consequences of an infection developed due to non use of antibiotics. Opposite party No.2 further contended that the in view of the delay of the union of the fractured bone, he suggested bone grafting but the complainant insisted on consulting Ayurvedic doctor at Puttur and as per his advice she had the nail removed on 8-11-2000. He also submitted that in order to rule out other probabilities, he advised Montoux which was reported negative. Opposite parties denied that Plaster of Paris bandage was applied after the removal of nail and stated that the complainant did not consult him after 21-1-2001 and that also denied that an x-ray was taken on 21-1-2001 and it revealed non union of the right humerous and refer to Doctor Harisharma. They further submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.