Medical professionals must adhere to established standards of practice; failing to do so constitutes negligence, justifying compensation to affected patients.

PER BHARATKUMAR RAND YA. MEMBER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/opposite party against the order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the State Com m ission, Punjab, in First Appeal No. 1579 of 2012, whereby State Com m ission allowed the appeal of the com plainant and set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the OP doctors to pay Rs.2.3 lakhs to the com plainant.

2. Brief fact of the case are that respondent/com plainant suffered a road side injury and got adm itted to the hospital of the petitioner/O P doctor on 12.09.2011.The com plainant was operated on 13.09.2011 after necessary tests and evaluation of an X-Ray dated 12.09.2011. As per practice the operative site was visualized under C-Arm im age intensifier and the com plainant was discharged on 14.09.2011 in satisfactory condition with cast on the injured joint. After follow-up the cast was rem oved on 12.10.2011.The com plainant was prescribed hot fom entation, Syastaflam e gel and Active Exercises. The com plainant visited the petitioner last on 24.10.2011. Thereafter as per com plaint filed before the District Forum , com plainant approached Dr. Sanjeev Arora of Civil Hospital Barnala on 22.11.2011 and an X-Ray was got done on 22.11.2011.Com plainant on 24.11.2011 visited Dr. Hari Om Aggarwal a senior O rthopedic surgeon at Patiala with com plaint of elbow stiffness and was advised Physiotherapy and Hot Fom entation. The com plainant again approached Dr. M anjit Singh of Govt. M edical College & Rajindra Hospital Patiala on 24.11.2011 wherein he was again advised Physiotherapy. After undergoing physiotherapy as advised, the com plainant again visited Dr. M anjit Singh 02.02.2012 and underwent CT scan on 02.02.2012. On evaluation of the CT scan report he was advised further treatm ent for three weeks. On 06.02.2012 the com plainant visited PGI Chandigarh and was diagnosed to be suffering from Arthritis and was advised rem oval of intra articular fragm ent and reduction of hilum . The com plainant got adm itted to Dayanand M edical College & Hospital (DM C&H) on 16.02.2012 and underwent surgery of the elbow under Dr. M. Yam in, Prof. & Head Deptt. of O rthopaedics for which com plainant had spent Rs.20,803/- for the treatm ent. As per respondent/com plainant, due to wrong operation done by the petitioner doctors, he suffered physical, m ental and econom ical harassm ent and when com plainant approached the O Ps for dam ages for his sufferings, they did not com e forward to help him . He approached the District Forum . District Forum , after hearing both the parties and after going through m aterial on record, passed an order dated 04.09.2012 (page 41-52 of the petition) in favour of the OP doctor, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:

It is the specific case of the O.P., that there are no allegations against the O.P., that O.P left those specific parts in the arm during operation. Further, we have also gone through the C. T. Scan conducted by Dr. Mohammad Yamin. We feel, that he has not mentioned clearly anything about those parts. Further, there is no medical evidence on the file, that those bone parts, which are in some other area and it is the same area which is being operated upon by the O.P. Further, it is important to mention here, that no evidence is brought on record by the CC by calling an expert, who could suggest, that these specific complications arose to the CC after the operation of the CC or is the net result of any kind of negligence on the part of the 0. P.

It is important to mention here, that it is also not the case of the CC, that O.P.wrongly diagnosed the area of operation. We feel, that the CC on this point has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The O.P. in support of