22,00,000/ with interest at the rate of 24 per annum to the companyplainant.
iv That the respondent number2, who was a Neurosurgeon did number companysult the Orthopedic surgeon, even though he was number capable to handle the case of companyplainant appellant without companysulting Orthopedic surgeon.
The Commission has companycluded Medical negligence is when a doctor did something which he ought number to have done or did number do what he ought to have done.
It is also stated that the case summary and the MRI reports suggest that the problem was aggravated and there was need for another operation.
1 , for Medical check up.
Hence, it was claimed that there is gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondents in treating the companyplainant appellant, and therefore, respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs.
The facts in brief are as under The appellant companyplainant was a teacher by profession.
By the impugned order National Consumer Commission has rejected the petition filed by the companyplainant.
Even after the second operation the infection was number cured and this forced him to refer his case to Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neurological Sciences, New Delhi VIMHANS for further treatment.
NATIONAL COMMISSION JUDGMENT After companysidering the case presented by the appellant and the respondents and looking through the affidavits filed by the parties, the National Commission has companye to the companyclusion that medical negligence is number proved against the respondents.
He was aged about 60 years when he was down with physical ailments such as backache and difficulty in walking as a result of progressive weakness of both his lower limbs.
It is further stated, that, the third operation was preformed and it provided the appellant some relief, but left him handicapped due to his legs being rendered useless and loss of companytrol over his Bladder movement.
The claim of the appellant before the National Commission was as under That the companyrect method of operating his infection was the Antero Lateral Decompression ALD and number Laminectomy.
iii That there was numberrequirement of immediate surgery.
On the same day, C.T. Scan was done and he was diagnosed as a patient of Dorsol Cord Compression D4 D6 Potts spine which in simple terms means that T.B. infection has spread till his vertebra.
They did whatever was required to be done of Neuro Surgeons.
The operation was performed by Dr. Atul Sahay Respondent No.2 on 25.11.1995.
ii That the companyplainant appellant companytends that he was kept only for one week on the Anti Tubercular drugs before the surgery which is a much shorter duration than the accepted medical practice.
As the problem worsened, on 20.11.1995, the appellant approached Regency Hospital Ltd. Respondent No.
The doctors were qualified professionals.
COMPLAINT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION The appellant, being impaired by the treatment, filed a companyplaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred as National Commission alleging medical negligence on the part of respondents 1 to 3.
On the same day he was advised to get operated for decompression of spinal companyd by Laminectomy D 3 to D 6.
Dr.I.N.Vajpayee respondent number3 was companysulted on 12.12.1995 and he performed the operation on the same day.
It is asserted, that, after the operation, the companydition of the appellant deteriorated further and it was revealed from the MRI scan that the operation was number successful as it was number done at the right level.
128 of 1996 dated 23.5.2002.
L. Dattu, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No.
