AICL Cases 2015

How a good advocate can mold the case in your favor, complaint against AICL dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.


The complainant met with an accident on 21.05.2011, hence was taken to Nagarmal Modi Seva Sadan, OP 2 hospital. The right-hand bone was fractured, OP 1 doctor (AICL member) planned for interlocking and I.M. Nailing and further inserting of rod was suggested. Hence the complainant was admitted to hospital on 24.05.2011 after several test surgery was done for inserting the rod. It has been alleged that post-surgery no X-ray was done to check whether surgery was successful or not. Later there was pus was coming out regularly from the wound, same was informed to OPs but it was informed that wound is healing, thereafter plaster was removed and physiotherapy was advised. The physiotherapist informed the complainant that the hand was dropping and advised to consult the operating doctor. Despite the medicines prescribed no sign of relief was there. Henceforth the complainant consulted another orthopedic, Gulmohar Hospital, where X-ray was done and the doctors studied X-ray dated 21.05.2011 (pre surgery) and 17.08.2011. The doctors stated that pre-surgery there was only one broken bone and now there are 3 to 4 broken bones, plates have not been properly attached, wires were broken, screws attached to the plates are loosen and 1inch bone was infected and rotten.
The complainant was re-operated rotten bone was removed by bone grafting and fresh plate was attached but certainly was not given for union of bone. Afterward, the complainant went to a few more doctors and multiple surgeries were conducted for Manipulation Planting and it was revealed during the surgery the OP 1 cause damage to the nerves resulting in loss of sensation. Hence a consumer complaint was filed.  
Facts: Being the member experts of AICL prepared the case and the learned counsel, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, on behalf of OPs vehemently denied all the allegations and stated the complaint liable to be dismissed as the complainant is concealing facts and has not filed the relevant documents and neither has made the other treating hospitals and doctors party. Nerve test, The second opinion was suggested to the complainant, advice of OPs was not followed to stop physiotherapy upon severe pain. The prognosis was also explained, there is no deficiency in service.
It was further submitted that the complainant has claimed imaginary and exaggerated figures in order to bring this case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. He submitted that no details whatsoever have been given which claimed value has been mentioned as Rs. 10 lacs approx. said to have been incurred by the complainant towards medical expenses and Rs. 5 Lakhs .towards further medical and allied expenses. Further the compensation of Rs. 50 lacs towards physical and mental agony is highly exaggerated, He relied on order dated 28.5.2009 passed in Revision Petition No. 17012009 by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of CHL Apollo Hospital vs Dr. ( Mrs.) Jasbir Gupta.
Held:
The learned court agreed with the contention of OP that the complainant has only alleged deficiency in service in the complaint. Further the claim of Rs. 50 lacs towards physical and mental agony is also without any basis. The complainants are permitted to file a fresh complaint petition before the learned District Forum, if so advised. If it is filed along with limitation petition within six weeks, it is expected that the delay will be condoned. With these observations and findings, this complaint case stands disposed.