Consumer Commission orders doc to pay Rs one lakh compensation

Dimissing an appeal filed by a noted doctor here, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the order of the Thane District Consumer Forum, which held that the doctor was deficient in his services to the complainant and directed him to pay him Rs one lakh compensation, besides Rs 1.5 lakhs as reimbursement.
The case relates to Dr Vishwas Sapatnekar, who operated upon Dashrath Kangule on June 30, 1994 and discharged him on October 5, 1994.
However, when he found no relief, Kangule referred to Dr Subodh Mehta. As per his opinion, the complainant was suffering from non-union of fracture on right femur shaft and hence required a second surgery.

Mehta also opined that the knee joint of the complainant is likely to remain permanently stiff. Mehta carried out operation to rectify the developments in the operation carried out by Sapatnekar.
Alleging that the opponent doctor had not carried out the operation properly which resulted in re-operation amounting to medical negligence and consequently deficiency in service on his part, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking a direction that it may be declared that the opponent doctor was deficient in rendering services to him.
Kangule also claimed from the opponent doctor, an amount of Rs 1,99,993.15 towards reimbursement of medical expenditure besides an amount of three lakh by way of compensation.

The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the opponent doctor, evidence adduced by both the parties on affidavits and pleadings of advocates, came to a conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent doctor as he is not a specialist in orthopaedic surgery and partly allowed the complaint.
The Forum directed the Sapatnekar to pay Rs one lakh towards compensation besides an amount of Rs 1,50,000 towards reimbursement of medical expenditure within a period of eight weeks failing which these amounts were to carry penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of complaint till satisfaction of the award.

Upholding the order recently, presiding member of the Commission, Dhanraj Khamatkar and member Narendra Kawde held: "it is clear that though the opponent doctor claims to be a specialist in orthopaedic surgery, he does not possess a required qualification to perform such orthopaedic surgery.