IMPORTANT POINT
Doctors should give honest medical advice to patients.

Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member—This First Appeal has been filed by Dr.R.K. Sharma and Others (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Complaint No.150/1997 wherein State Commission has directed the Appellant/doctor to pay Rs.1 lakh as a lump-sum compensation to Vinit Mehta, complainant before the State Commission and Respondent herein.

2. Respondent in response to an advertisement in some leading dailies given by the Appellant/doctor that he could increase the height through a famous Russian surgical method (for dwarfs, short-structured, limb length inequality, amputees, difficult fractures/non-unions etc., approached the Appellant/doctor and expressed his desire to increase his body height from 5’10” to 6 ft. Appellant/doctor immediately admitted him for an X-ray and charged him Rs.1,000/- as consultation fees and assured him that through this surgery, his height would be increased by minimum 4” to 5” inches. The cost of the operation would be Rs.1,50,000/- and within two to three months of the surgery, he would be able to walk normally with the increased height. The surgery was undertaken on 06.05.1996 and for the next two days, Respondent was given glucose and cold drinks. When the Respondent’s widowed mother came to Delhi to see the Respondent, she noticed that only one leg of the Respondent had been operated and a fixture put on it. Respondent’s mother asked Appellant not to undertake any further surgery and requested for a reversal of the operation as there was no need to increase the height of the Respondent who was already 5'10". After two days the Appellant/doctor agreed to conduct the reversal operation and consequently the fixture was removed and the Respondent was discharged. However, after this surgery the Respondent was not able to walk properly and nor could the leg bear any stress because the fibula was cut by the Appellant/doctor and a 2 inch piece was taken out and thrown away. As a result the Respondent became permanently disabled and is not in a position to join the police force which he had aspired to do. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service and requested that Appellant/doctor be directed to pay compensation of Rs.20 lakhs to him in lieu of the disability caused, mental agony and harassment as also litigation costs.

3. Appellant/doctor on being served admitted that the surgery was conducted by him through the Illizarov technique which is universally well recognized and because the Respondent had expressed his desire to join the film industry and therefore wanted to increase his height as advised by his relatives. The operation was conducted after the necessary diagnostic tests and with due consent of the Respondent who is a major. The Respondent was also explained that by this technique a gap of less than half an inch is made in the fibula for conducting the aforesaid operation and a transverse cut is made in the tibia. The surgery was successful and there was no complication but it was on the insistence of the mother of the Respondent for reversal operation that this was also agreed to and successfully conducted. Appellant contended that he only charged Rs.10,000/- from Respondent and returned rest of the amount received from him.

4. The State Commission after hearing both parties and on the basis of evidence filed before it concluded that even though no medical opinion or expert evidence to support the allegations that the Respondent had suffered permanent disability, had been filed before the State Commission, yet it was obvious that there was limited deficiency in service as also negligence on the part of the Appellant/doctor in performing the operation on a person on whom he should not have done so as publicised by Appellant this surgery was specified/suitable