IMPORTANT POINT
Allegation of medical negligence must be proved by expert evidence.

S.C. Vyas, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 11.11.08, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short), in complaint case No.375/07, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, alleging deficiency in medical service and for claim of damages, has been dismissed, on the ground that such allegation of medical negligence has not been proved.

2. Facts of the case in brief, as narrated in the complaint, are that on 31.7.05, complainant/appellant suffered fracture of radius and ulna bones of his left hand. He went to the hospital of respondent/OP, where, on 1.8.05, after thorough checkup surgical operation was advised. The operation was performed and the complainant/appellant was required to remain in the hospital till 3.8.05. He was discharged on 3.8.05 and was advised to come to the hospital, from time to time, for checkup. He attended the hospital on 11.8.05, 15.8.05 and 5.10.05 and medicines were prescribed by the respondent. It was found that even after one month there was no markable progress in the healing of injury. On 25.11.05, he again went to the hospital of the respondent, where, after checkup and X-ray examination, second operation was suggested. On 26.11.05, such operation was performed and again he was called for checkup from time to time. He was following the instructions given by the respondent and was attending the hospital, from time to time, for checkup and on 23.12.05, it was informed by the respondent/OP that there is some deformity in the bone and to correct that deformity third operation is necessary. On account of financial hardship the complainant/appellant had not agreed with the suggestion of third operation, but the respondent assured that after third operation, his wrist and bone would be alright. On this assurance, he agreed and the third operation was performed on 2.1.06 and then again he was called for checkup from time to time. Even after three months from the date of operation, there was no relief from the problems and he was continuously being called for checkups. On 18.7.06, it was informed by the respondent to him that the injury has been healed and the skin has also become alright, but there appears mal-union of bone resulting in deformity in the hand. It was alleged by the complainant/appellant that even after surgical operation on three occasions the respondent/OP failed to treat his injury and to remove the deformity in his left hand and on account of negligence of the respondent/OP the wrist joint of left hand of the complainant appellant became non-functional and he has become permanent disable and facing a lot of problems in performing his daily routine. He has also lost his job of vehicle driver. Alleging these facts, he demanded compensation of Rs.3,87,000, which includes cost of three operations Rs.56,000, expenditure of checkup journeys and medicines, of Rs.31,000 and compensation f6r 30% deformity in the left hand, Rs.3,00,000.

3. The respondent/OP, in reply, has refuted the allegation leveled by the complainant and averred that the complainant came to him with the complaint of fracture of radius and ulna bones near wrist joint. He sustained that fracture on both bones after falling down from ladder at Kanker on 30.7.05 and on next day, he came to the respondent. He was operated on his fracture by fixing a plate and screws on 1.8.05 and after checkup X-ray, he was discharged with advice to come for checkup regularly. Later on, by second operation, the nails and screws were removed and the third operation was performed, after which the wound was healed. He visited the OP/respondent on 30.3.06 for the last time when the fractures had healed with proper alignment and infection was cured. It has been further averred that after a gap of 3-1/2 months on 18.7.06 he came with a fresh swelling, pain and a new deformity of the forearm, which was having no connection with the earlier injury, which was treate