Positive evidence is required to establish medical negligence.

Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah, President—The complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 21,07,372.01 from the opposite parties (for short, “O.Ps.”) alleging “deficiency in service”.

2. The facts in this case are as follows:

The complainant developed pain and numbness on her left thumb and palm a few days before the last week of April, 2002, for which she got herself admitted in O.P. 1 Hospital on 23.4.2002. O.P. 2 is working as a doctor in O.P. 1 Hospital. O.P. 2 conducted an operation on 25.4.2002 and thereafter the complainant was discharged from O.P. 1 Hospital on 27.4.2002.

3. The case of the complainant is that on admission, the complainant was diagnosed as “(1) Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and (2) Distal Subclarian Arterial conclusion” and she was operated throwing the medical ethics to the gutter. According to the complainant, she had obtained medical opinion to that effect. The operation that was conducted, according to the complainant, resulted in a “thrombus developed due to decompression, causing acute ischemia on the limbs”. She was also advised C.T. Scan unnecessarily. This, according to the complainant, has made her to take treatment in several Hospitals such as Jayadeva Hospital, Mallya Hospital and Bhagawan Mahaveer Jain Hospital by spending heavy amount and, ultimately, her left hand was to be amputated rendering her crippled throughout her left. The complainant is a young girl and she has lost her future prospects due to the amputation of the hand. Hence, she is entitled for compensation of Rs. 21,07,372.01 from the O.Ps.

4. O.P. 1 has filed its version stating that there is no negligence on the part of the doctors who conducted the operation and treated the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant was directed to consult a Vascular Surgeon for further management as no Vascular Surgeon was available in O.P. 1 Hospital. Thereafter, the complainant might have taken treatment in the Hospitals referred to in the complaint for which O.P. 1 Hospital is not responsible or liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

5. O.P. 2 has also filed his version. In the version O.P. 2 has admitted that the complainant was admitted to O.P. 1 Hospital on the complaint of pain and numbness in her left thumb and palm. It is stated that after clinical examination it was diagnosed that the complainant was suffering from “carpal tunnel syndrome with bilateral cervical ribs”. In order to give relief to the complainant, it is stated that the surgical treatment was required and, accordingly, the operation was conducted. After the operation, the pain in the left thumb and palm of the complainant was subsidized and sensation was regained. It is further stated in the version that there was no error of professional judgment and O.P. 2 has adopted the correct and best treatment. O.P. 2 has further averred in the version that “Thrombosis” which was developed in the left forearm of the complainant has no connection or relation with the operation conducted by him. After examination, O.P. 2 advised the complainant to go for C.T. Scan but it was not done as the complainant had disagreed for going for a C.T. Scan due to her financial constraints. The further case of O.P. 2 is that during the post operative period the complainant had developed vascular complications on 26.4.2002 and thereafter he referred the complainant to the Vascular Surgeon for further course of action but she did not approach the Vascular Surgeon and this has resulted in further complications. O.P. 2 has denied all the allegations made in the complaint regarding negligence and deficiency in service.

6. The complainant has produced all the records relating to the treatment taken by her in several Hospital including O.P. 1 Hospital and they are all marked as Exhibits. All the parties have filed their affidavits by way of evidence. In addition the parties have also filed the interrogatories and replies to the interrogatories.

7. From the pleadi