1. THIS revision petition is filed against concurrent orders passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai and the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the Complaint of the present respondent, Sri G. Rajendran.
2. IN a nutshell, the facts are that in a road accident the Complainant had suffered compound fracture in his right leg on 27.11.1999. He was treated at OP -3/ Madurai City Hospital by Dr. Swaminathan/OP -1 and Dr. A.M.R. Padmanaban/OP -2. On 27.11.1999, the leg was put in plaster cast, which was removed later when X -ray showed non -union of the bone. On 2.12.1999 steel -plates were put with nuts and bolts, as an alternative to the plaster cast. On 16 -12 -1999 he underwent procedure for skin grafting on the open area of the wound and was discharged on 15.1.2000.
During this entire period of treatment, the Complainant allegedly continued to suffer from continuous pain, despite all assurances of the OPs that the proper treatment was being given to him. Upon discharge from OP -3/Madurai Hospital, he took further treatment from another doctor, Dr. Devadoss which helped. He was once again able to walk on his own legs. Thereafter, consumer complaint was filed against the OPs.
3. ON consideration of the evidence led by the two sides, the District Forum concluded that the need to go for the second surgery in this case arose from the fact that the site of the original injury had got infected. The Complainant was not a diabetic and he had sustained a compound fracture with 3 inch long lacerated injury. However, it was only a compound fracture and not a comminuted fracture. The OPs themselves have stated that the infection was mainly due to the open wound. They have also stated that on 14.12.1999 alternate suture were removed when it was noticed that the skin was not very healthy in the place of original wound. Therefore, they undertook skin grafting. They also stated that in open wound of this nature there is always a chance of infection. Therefore, the District Forum, observed that before the surgery the OP should have cleaned the wound properly, to avoid any possibility of infection and complication. It also held that as per the case sheet signatures of the Complainant and relatives have been obtained in the printed form on 2.12.1999, 18.12.1999 and 6.1.2000, but it does not mention that the detail of the procedure involved in the fixing of plates with screws and skin grafting had been properly explained to them before undertaking the procedure.
4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission has made an independent re -evaluation of the evidence. On the choice of the line of treatment, the Commission has held that the OPs cannot be faulted for choosing the plate and screw method and not external fixation method. But, having chosen the line of treatment, they failed to do it properly. The State Commission has observed that -
''''Though they knew that the complainant had met with a road accident, proper treatment was not given at the earlier stage to reduce the swelling and plain and at the enquiry they said that in spite of thorough cleaning there was dormant infection earlier. According to them it was an accepted fact that the wound due to RTA was potently infected and whatever the procedure adopted, there was a chance of infection. They had not taken steps to control the infection by given proper treatment and medicine. The plate and screw were not properly fixed and therefore infection had developed. At that point of time, they woke up and suggested to the complainant to remove the plate and screw. But this was not stated in the case sheet. ''''
Thus, admittedly the OPs were fully aware of the risk of infection in a leg fracture with an open wound and yet failed to avoid it. In the Revision Petition the OPs call it a wrong assumption on the part of the fora below but do not explain how skin grafting on the open wound, without ensuring complete healing of the infection, was the right medical procedure.Further, both fora have held that the line of treatment chosen by the Revision Petitioners/OPs was not properly explained to the complainants or his relatives. This is brought out as the foremost ground of challenge in the Revision petition. Their Counsel too argued forcefully that the details and its implications were fully explained to the complainant before his consent was obtained. In this behalf, he referred to the pleadings of the OPs before the District Forum. But, the records present a different picture. We find that consent in writing was obtained on three occasions, viz. 27.11.1999, 2.12.1999 and 6.1.2000. On 27.11.1999 the fractured leg was put in plaster cast. On 2.12.1999 the cast was removed and metal plate was fixed. On 6.1.2000 skin grafting was done on the facture wound. While all three were different procedures, the written consent on all three occasions is identically worded and reads -
'''' Ihereby give my full consent for treatment of the patient admitted in the hospital to undergo operation, to undergo all types of test to find out the cause for the disease, for infusion of blood, to give anaesthesia and I declare that no one will be held responsible in any unpleasant event. ''''
The Revision Petition carries no explanation as to how such a generally worded consent was relevant to specific procedures. Learned counsel for the petitioners too has made no attempt to explain it. Therefore, the only inference that can possibly be drawn is that none of the three procedures were specifically explained at the time of obtaining consent of the Complainant.5. IN view of the above we find no ground for exercise of jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition No. 4084 of 2008 is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. No orders as to costs.
