IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 03.03.2015 Date of Hearing: 14.07.2025 Date of Decision: 15.10.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.-110/2015 IN THE MATTER OF

1. MAX BALAJI HOSPITAL, (A UNIT OF BALAJI MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH CENTRE), 108 A, I.P. EXTENSION, OPPOSITE SANCHAR APARTMENT.

NEW DELHI – 110 092.

2. DR. L. TOMAR, (ORTHOPAEPDIST)

108 A, I.P. EXTENSION, OPPOSITE SANCHAR APARTMENT NEW DELHI – 110 092.

(Through: Mr. Ravindra Aggarwal, Advocate)

…Appellants VERSUS SMT. N. R. MISHRA W/O SHRI M.P. MISHRA, R/O. 653, KANUNGO APARTMENTS, DELHI – 110 092.

(Through: Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Ms. Shakti Chaturvedi, Counsel for the Appellant appeared through VC Mr. Biraja Mahapatra and Mr. Nalin Hingorani, Counsel for the respondent (Enrl. No. D/696/2001 & D/12389/2022, Mobile:

9810935526, Email: birajamahapatra@gmail.com PER : HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that the complainant, aged 56 years, was admitted to Max Balaji Hospital, the Respondent No.1 herein, on 03/06/2010 with complaints of pain and swelling on the right ankle due to fall on 02/06/2010 and was treated under the direct supervision of Respondent No. II. It is alleged that during recording of the case history the complainant referred to the X-ray film of the Gangaram Hospital which reflected three fractures one below the knee, second exactly on the ankle and the third one just below the ankle. Surgery was conducted on 03/06/2010 and internal fixation was done with two cannulated cancellous screws for posterior malleolus. The complainant remained hospitalized till 07/06/2010 and an amount Rs.76,167/- was spent on the hospitalization. At the time of discharge the complainant was assured of full recovery within four to six weeks. The plaster was removed from the leg of the complainant on 18/07/2010. Despite regular follow-up and physiotherapy sessions under the supervision of qualified physiotherapist the complainant was feeling excruciating pain in her ankle and was not able to stand properly even using a crutch. In the last week of August and second week of September the complainant alleges to have sought opinions from two orthopaedists, one at Delhi and the other at Orissa and had shown the prescriptions and x-ray films to them. Both these doctors after examining the patient physically opined that the complainant might require another surgery as the treating doctor, the Respondent No. II herein, had not fixed the screws for another fracture below the ankle and had left a fracture unattended. The said two doctors further opined that the Respondent No. II has not followed the generally accepted medical procedure as followed in similar cases and had it been carried out the complainant would be able to walk properly till now. The complainant is forced to take the services of an attendant and take physiotherapy. The complainant has prayed for a compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- besides the cost of the present litigation.

In response to the notice issued to the respondents, a joint written version has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. I and II wherein while denying all the allegations raised by the complainant in her complaint it is contended that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the post operative radiograph done on 06/06/2010 shows good alignment, adequate fixation and no displaced bony fragment After satisfactory treatment the complainant was discharged from the Respondent No.1 hospital on 07/06/2010 under stable condition with advice not to bear weight, continuation of casting and follow-up in OPD. The cast was removed on 18/07/2010 and radiographs taken thereafter reflected proper alignment of the ankle mortis and no fracture line or displac