The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of medical negligence requires consideration of medical literature and expert testimony to assess the standard of care and professional competence.

ORDER

J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member - The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the First Appeal No.261 of 2011 2 opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 05.01.2011 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.

2. The complainant Gianpal Anand has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in 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 Orthopedic Department. OP No.2 advised operation and diagnosed closed fracture subtrochantric region femur left side. OP conducted open reduction and internal fixation of fracture with Recon (zimmer) (12x38) (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 First Appeal No.261 of 2011 3 showed rough behaviour 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 27.04.2008, 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 xray 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.

3. Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 2 filed their separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising First Appeal No.261 of 2011 4 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