Mr. Justice A.N. Chaturvedi, President—The case of the complainant is that he met with an accident on 28.10.1994 and sustained multiple injury in his left leg. He was admitted in Sadar Hospital at Khagaria where he was examined by Dr. Awadhesh Kumar who referred him to Dr. S.M. Thakur, Orthopaedic Surgeon in Sadar Hospital. He was examined by Dr. Thakur, a slab was given to him and he was asked by Dr. Thakur to come to Uma Nursing Home for better and regular treatment. On being so advised by Dr. Thakur, he got himself discharged from Sadar Hospital on 29.10.1994 and went to Uma Nursing Home on 3.11.1994 where his left leg was plastered and some medicines were prescribed without X-ray, etc. After one or two days he was allowed to leave the Nursing Home and was advised to come to the Nursing Home twice in a week for regular check-up. For every check-up Dr. Thakur charged Rs. 50/- as his fee. He was feeling severe pain in his left leg and was drawing the attention of Dr. Thakur towards that but the doctor assured him that he would be cured soon as he was being given right treatment. Finding no improvement he came to Patna and consulted Dr. R.N. Singh, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, who told him that he was getting faulty and negligent treatment as a result of which the fractured bone had not joined up till now. Dr. R.N. Singh advised him to do some physical exercises under the guidance of some physiotherapist. Due to negligent and faulty treatment of Dr. Thakur he has become handicapped to the extent of 43.50% as certified by the Civil Surgeon-cum-C.M.O., Khagaria and has lost his efficiency in doing physical work. Apart from that, he has been put to mental agony, physical harassment and monetary loss. On the allegations aforesaid, the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 700,000/- (Rs. seven lacs).

2. Opposite party Dr. Shree Mohan Thakur has filed written statement in the form of an affidavit and has contested the case. His case is that the complainant had been treated by him in Sadar Hospital, Khagaria without charging anything for the treatment. He was discharged from the hospital on his own request when he (complainant) stated that his residence was by the side of the hospital and he was feeling alright. It is false to say that he had been advised by the opposite party to come to Uma Nursing Home for better treatment. Had it been a fact then the complainant would have come to Uma Nursing Home on 29.10.1994, the day he was discharged from the hospital and not on 3.11.1994, i.e., nearly a week after discharged from the hospital. X-ray had been done on 28.10.1994, the day the complainant was admitted in Sadar Hospital and thereafter plaster was done and he was treated in the Sadar Hospital. It is neither the case of the complainant that he had paid any fee to the opposite party for the plaster nor there is any receipt with regard thereto. It is false to say that the complainant had been asked to come twice a week for check-up and for that he had paid Rs. 50/- as fee to the opposite party. It is not the case of the complainant that for plaster in the Nursing Home he had paid any fee or Nursing Home charge to the opposite party. If so, then the alleged payment of Rs. 50/- as fee for check-up is ridiculous and funny. In the complaint petition it has not been disclosed as to now the service provided by the opposite party was deficient and what was the proof thereof.

3. Further case of the opposite party is that the complainant being the neighbour of the opposite party had met him once or twice, reminded him about plaster in Sadar Hospital and had talked of some inconvenience and the opposite party had possibly prescribed some medicines and vitamins from time to time in accordance with need. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is apparent from the fact that the complainant got himself discharged from the hospital on 29.10.1994 and was attending his duty from 5.11.1994 onwards. The prescription