First Appeal No. 261 of 2011. Case: Gianpal Anand Vs Yamin and Ors.. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 261 of 2011
JudgesJ.S. Klar, Presiding Member (J) and Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12
CitationIV (2015) CPJ 5 (Punj.)
Judgement DateJuly 15, 2015
CourtPunjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


J.S. Klar, Presiding Member (J)

  1. The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 5.1.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant in this appeal. The complainant Gianpal Anand has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that his left leg was fractured on 10.4.2008, when he suddenly fell from the bed. He was undergoing unbearable pain in his lower left limb and could not put on any weight on it. He was taken to the OPs and admitted in DMC, Ludhiana, vide admission No. 2008-12064 CR No. 2008-34414 under Dr. Mohd. Yamin of Orthopaedic Department. OP No. 2 advised operation and diagnosed closed fracture subtrochanteric region femur left side. OP conducted open reduction and internal fixation of fracture with Recon (zimmer) (12 x 38) (2 cervical screws) (2D) on 11.4.2008. OP assured the complainant to perform the operation of his left leg and thereby he would be able to walk within a week therewith. The condition of the complainant rather worsened after, operation and his wound started bleeding. OPs and nursing staff did not pay any heed to the complainant, whenever, the complainant inquired from OP No. 1 about the cause of bleeding, it was taken in a casual manner only. The condition of the complainant started worsening as the zimmer came out of his operated left leg. The complainant later on came to know that said zimmer has not been properly fixed in the left leg. Instead of giving any conciliation to the complainant, the OP No. 1 showed rough behavior to the complainant. Bed rest was recorded on the OPD card of the complainant in a perfunctory manner by OP No. 1. The complainant eventually approached Mittal Nursing Home and Trauma Centre, Kithclu Nagar, Ludhiana on 27.4.2008, where Dr. Anil Mittal examined the complainant and conducted his x-ray and blood tests and found his HB level as 6 mg. Six blood bottles were transfused to the complainant to save his life thereat. After x-ray examination, it was revealed that zimmer has not been properly fixed by OP No. 2 in the broken leg of complainant at the time of operation. The blood kept on oozing on account of negligent act on the part of OP No. 2. Dr. Anil Mittal also informed the complainant that the fixed zimmer was not compatible for the said fracture and only plates could cure the said fracture and plates should have been fixed rather than the zimmer therein. The complainant has alleged medical negligence on the part of OPs, as they fixed the zimmer in stead of plates in a cursory manner on the complainant. The complainant alleged in the complaint that OPs failed to adopt the correct line of the treatment by fixing zimmer instead of plates in the left leg of the complainant. Zimmer was not properly stitched and it came out causing bleeding to the complainant. The complainant had to incur Rs. 2 lac on his treatment. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint claiming compensation from the OPs of Rs. 5 lac along with interest @ 24% p.a. on account of medical negligence exhibited by the OPs in the above treatment of the complainant.

  2. Upon notice, OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed their separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complex question of facts and law are involved in this case, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings by the Consumer Forum. The complainant has failed to prove as to what ought to have been done and what has not been done by the OPs in this case. The claim of the complainant is based on exaggeration and lies only. No specific allegation of negligence has been levelled by the complainant against the OPs in the complaint. It was admitted by OPs that complainant...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT