A.VENKATARAMANA Vs. JAGADISH LANKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.101/2005 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a lorry mechanic and he approached the opposite party on 5.9.2004 for the treatment of his right injured forefinger and on the assurance of opposite party he was admitted in M/s. Sri Sai Hospital and an operation was conducted on his injured forefinger and he was discharged on 6.9.2004 with a prescription and he used the medicines regularly as advised by the opp.party and also attended the hospital regularly for bandage etc. After operation the complainants operated forefinger become stiff and he is unable to discharge his normal duties.The complainant subsequently approached the opposite party 3 to 4 times and lastly on 4.1.2004 at his hospital and requested to arrange for re-conducting operation on his operated right fore finger but the opp.party refused to do so. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 6.1.2005 to the opp.party demanding to arrange for re-conducting the operation to his right injured operated forefinger at opposite partys own cost within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said legal notice in any Corporate Hospital, Hyderabad and to pay Rs.1 lakhs towards damages but there is no response from the opposite party. Subsequently the complainant approached Dr.D.Narsimhulu at Bhanu Orthopedic Home, Karimnagar who advised to visit NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Not able to afford to visit NIMS the complainant again visited the Doctor at Mancherial on 3.1.2005 on whose advise he underwent an X-ray and expressed inability to re-conduct the operation on the right forefinger as it could not be made well. Due to the negligence and deficiency in service of opp.party in conducting the operation, the complainant is put to huge and irreparable loss and he is deprived of his source of income. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to arrange for reconducting the operation of his injured right operated fore finger at any good corporate hospital at the cost of opp.party, Hyderabad and to pay Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and to pay costs of Rs.1000/-.

(3.) Opposite party filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stating that he is not working in Sri Sai Hospital and when his services were felt necessary the said hospital management used to call him and on call on 5.9.2004 he went to the said hospital and examined the injury sustained by the complainant and noticed that it was traumatic crush injury on the right index finger, which means the soft tissue was found crushed and the middle phalynx was found fractured. The opposite party explained to the complainant and his attendants that it was a compound injury in which both the soft tissue and the bone were crushed and the blood supply to the injured finger was curtailed and also told that the viability of the injured finger is doubtful and hence advised to go for amputation of the said finger, but the complainant and his attendants have opted for surgery in the hope of saving the injured finger. The opposite party has performed surgery on 5.9.2005 and during the course of surgery the wound was thoroughly cleaned, under aseptic precautions, K.Wire fixation was done and the wound was sutured. The complainant was informed that physiotherapy is a must after the wound healing, as otherwise stiffness of finger will be caused, but the complainant never visited him and never consulted him for follow up treatment. The opposite party submits that he has done his job well and was never negligent in treating the complainant. The allegation made by the complainant that he consulted the opposite party lastly on 4.1.2004 and three to four times prior there to is meaningless because the injury itself was sustained on 5.9.2004. The complainant has not shown any purchase of medicines as prescribed by the opp.party on 6.9.2004. The medical bill No.1057 dt.16.12.2004 of Sri Tirumala Pharmacy, Godavarikhani filed by the complainant shows that he purchased the medicines prescribed by the opposite party on 16.12.2004, but he has not revealed as to who advised him to use the said medicines on 16.12.2004. Opposite party states that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on his behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.