Malka Tarannum

V
Dr. C. P. Gupta
SYNOPSIS
FACTS
Facts leading to this Appeal are:-
There was negligence in applying (the first) plaster cast on the complainant's daughter's fractured
hand, which led to the need to apply the plaster for the second time.
In appeal, the State Commission dismissed the complaint and also held that the complainant was
not a consumer since he was not charged any fee for the treatment. In revision, the National
Commission held that application of the plaster for the second time did not imply medical
negligence on the first occassion since application of POP slab (also known as temporary cast)
was a normal procedure adopted in the first instance whenever there was swelling at the site of
the injury

ISSUES RAISED
The issues that have been raised are as follows:-

 Is patient to be considered as consumer?

ORDER
The Commission observed that the doctor who had applied the plaster in the first instance was a

senior orthopaedic specialist with considerable experience and the complainant could not dispute

his professional decision on the basis of mere allegations, without any expert evidence. The

Commission also rejected the complainant's husband's contention that he was a consumer since

he was covered by the Supreme Court decision in Laxman Thamappa Kotgiri v G.M., Central

Railway & Others and that receiving free medical treatment was part of the terms and conditions

of his service. It held that the complainant took no such plea before the Fora below and no

evidence was produced.