ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—This Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner / Complainant under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), which allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’) and consequently dismissed the Complaint.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 10.04.2010, the Complainant Rajkumar injured his left leg in the road accident. He was examined and was treated by an Orthopedician, Dr. Rajeev Jain (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 1’) at Dr. Narender Memorial Murti Nursing Home at Baraut and then he was operated on 17.04.2010. The Complainant did not get relief. It was alleged that the plates fixed in the leg were not set properly. Therefore, on 9.11.2010, another operation was conducted by the Opposite Party No. 1, even then there was no cure. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 1 refused to treat the patient further. Therefore, 3rd operation was done by Dr. Tomar at Raksha Hospital in Bagpat and spent around Rs. 1 lakh. Being aggrieved by the alleged negligence of the Opposite Party No. 1, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum, Bagpat.

3. The Opposite Party filed its Written Version and denied the allegation of wrong treatment or wrong operation. It was further submitted that the Complainant did not follow post-operative instructions to visit every week, but after six months, he visited the Opposite Party No. 1. There was pus discharge and non-union of bone, therefore 2nd operation was performed. The X-ray taken after the operation revealed good bony alignment.

4. The District Forum, based on evidence and record, held the Opposite Party No. 1 liable for medical negligence and partly allowed the Complaint. The Opposite Party No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 2 lakh to the Complainant within two months along with interest @ 8% p.a. from 01.04.2011. The cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded. Being aggrieved, the Opposite Party No. 1 preferred the Appeal before the State Commission.

5. The State Commission allowed the Appeal with the following observations:

“On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgment, it is found that no expert opinion has been sought which is capable of proving that the doctor did not follow the medical parameters in the treatment of the complainant. The District consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, in the impugned judgment, has opined on the basis of its imagination that the appellant has been negligent in the treatment of the complainant. In support of its observation, The District consumer Dispute Redressal Forum has not disclosed any medical literature. The president and members of The District consumer Dispute Redressal Forum are not expert in any branch of medical treatment. Therefore, the observation/opinion of The District consumer Dispute Redressal Forum that is based on the surmises and conjectures cannot be sufficient to hold that the appellant was negligent in the treatment of the complainant.

Therefore, in our view, based on material available on record is not sufficient to prove the negligence of the appellant. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by The District consumer Dispute Redressal Forum is liable to be rejected due the reason that negligence of the appellant was not proved. The appeal deserves to be allowed.

ORDER

The instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by The District consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Baghpat in Consumer Complaint No.63/2011 is set aside.”

6. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner / Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. None present for the Respondent No. 1. We have perused the material on Record, inter alia, the Orders of both the