IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Duty of care – The duty of care implies that the doctor must exercise reasonable skill and care, adhering to the standards expected of a medical professional in similar circumstances.
(2) Breach – A breach occurs when this duty is not fulfilled, and resulting damage refers to harm caused directly due to the breach.

ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Member—This Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) challenging the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (‘State Commission’) order dated 16.06.2017 vide which the State Commission partly allowed the Appeal No.338/2017, reduced the rate of interest to 5% per annum and upheld the remaining part of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Varanasi (‘District Forum’) order dated 17.01.2017.

2. As per the report of the Registry, there is 3 days delay in filing this Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA/14890/2017, the delay is condoned.

3. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the District Forum. Pradeep Kumar Singh is complainant (Respondent) whereas Dr. A.K. Rai Shayama Hospital is the Opposite Party (OP - Petitioner).

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he brought his mother, Smt. Phool Kumari, to the opposite party’s (OP) clinic for treatment of a fractured upper left leg. As per OP’s advice, his mother was admitted to the clinic on 05.07.2004, and the surgery was performed on 08.07.2004 wherein an implant plate was fixed in her leg. On 17.07.2004, she was discharged stating that everything was fine, and OP instructed the complainant to bring her for a follow-up check on 27.08.2004. He diligently followed all instructions. After a few days of the surgery, his mother began experiencing severe pain, swelling and discomfort in the operated area. He immediately brought her back to the OP and informed about her condition. OP reassured the complainant, stating that the plate would adjust itself over time and prescribed pain relief tablets. However, his mother did not find relief. On 23.04.2005 the X-ray conducted revealed that the plate implanted in her leg had broken. Despite this finding, the OP did not perform any corrective treatment or remove the broken plate. Instead, she was continually prescribed pain relief tablets. Her condition worsened, and she began experiencing other health complications due to prolonged use of painkillers. In August 2005, she developed swelling, pus and unbearable pain in her leg. On 27.08.2005, the OP advised hospital admission, and on 28.08.2005, she underwent another surgery to remove the broken plate. This surgery was done without adequately addressing the swelling, pus, and infection. Post-surgery, her condition deteriorated further. On 30.08.2005, blood tests revealed that she was suffering from severe jaundice. The teats held on 02.09.2005 indicated elevated serum urea levels. Yet no proper treatment was given. Despite her deteriorating condition, the OP conducted another surgery without stabilizing her health. These led to severe damage to her liver and kidneys. On 02.09.2005, she slipped into a coma. The OP then referred her to BHU Hospital. Despite six dialysis sessions, her condition did not improve, and she passed away on 22.09.2005. According to doctors at BHU, her death was due to improper implantation of DHS plate in the femur fracture by OP. The OP failed to provide proper treatment, relied excessively on pain relief medication and conducted surgeries without adequate care. He thus filed a CC before the District Forum.

5. In the written version before District Forum, the OP denied the allegations, stating that the patient, a 70-year-old woman, had come with a three-month-old leg fracture. The DHS plating was performed appropriately on 08.07.2004. However, as the complainant’s brother, Sunil Singh, was murdered on 17.07.2004, he sought early discharge of the patient. The OP contended that the implant plate broke due to the patient’s fall from a small stool, as informed on 23.04.2005 by her family. The necessity for corrective surgery was explained to them and his relatives, but they expressed financial constraints. As a result, OP continued prescribing pain rel