JUDGMENT : J.P. Vyas : - 1.Both these appeals under Section 15 of the C.P. Act - 1558/2007 and 1595/2007are directed against the same order dated 27-6-2007, passed in Case No. 318/05by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna ('Forum' hereafter) and shall be decided by thiscommon order. Whereas Appeal No. 1558/2007 is filed by the opposite party,seeking quashment of the impugned order, the otherAppeal No. 1595 by the complaint seeks enhancement in the compensation awarded.The parties in the order shall be referred to, as they are arrayed in the firstappeal. 2.Briefly stated, the complainant's right foot sole got pierced by some thornlike object while he was roaming bare-footed in his agricultural field, whichcaused pain and swelling in the foot. He went to O.P. No. 1 on 19-3-05 and met O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 whoafter prescribing some medicines admitted him in the hospital on 21-3-05 and performed surgery(incision and drainage) on the right foot sole on 22-3-05 . Since the foreign body (FB) was not seen in thefoot, it could not be removed. He was discharged on 28-3-05 . Since the swelling and pain did notsubside, he again met them who admitted him in the hospital on 4-6-05 , and after doing some tests, again operated on the upperside of the right foot, and discharged him on 7-6-05 . But he did not get any relief in pain, andswelling. He then met another Dr. P.K. Lakhatkia of District Hospital , Rewa who after taking the X-ray, and examination of the pus advised anotheroperation. He then went to Shanti Nursing Home (SNH),where Dr. Amit Kumar Tripathi , Orthopaedic Surgeon, performed another operation on6-10-05 and removed the FB comprising wooden pieces lodged in the OM cavityarea in the base of 3rd metatarsal (MT). Thereafter, he gradually improved andcould recoup after having suffered for nearly 7 months. He fell aggrieved bythe fact that had the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 removed the FB right in thefirst operation done on 22-3-05 ,he would not have suffered so much both physically and financially. Termingthis a case of medical negligence and deficiency in service, he filed acomplaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act before the Forum, seeking directionto the opposite party to pay to him, ( i ) an amount of Rs . 67,933/- that he had to spend on his treatmentbecause of negligence on the part of the opposite party, (ii) Rs . 67,933/- that he had to spend on his treatmentbecause of negligence on the part of the opposite party, (ii) Rs . 50,000/- as compensation for the physical suffering,(iii) Rs . 25,000/- for the mental torture suffered,and (iv) appropriate cost. 3.In their reply before the Forum, the opposite party denied the allegation ofmedical negligence and stated that on the first occasion the complainant hadswelling and pain in the sole of his right foot, and accordingly small surgerywas done on the sole and that on exploration no FB was found. Thereafter thecomplainant never came to them till 4-3-05 ,when he complained of pain and swelling on the upper portion of the right foot.Alter examination, incision and drainage was done asper normal practice and he was discharged. Thereafter the complainant nevercame to them. 4.After hearing both the parties and going through the documents submitted bythem, the learned Forum held that by not removing the FB during the twooperations done by the opposite party between 21-3-05 to 22-3-05 and 4-6-05 to 7-6-05 , the latter exhibited medicalnegligence. As a result the complainant had to suffer long physically and spendlot of money on treatment. Accordingly, vide impugned order, the opposite partywere directed to pay to the complainant Rs . 25,000/-within 30 days failing which interest (a) 12% shall be payable additionally w.e.f . 2-12-05, besides cost of Rs .500/-. Thelearned Counsels for both the parties were heard and documents filed on recordwere perused minutely. 5.Admittedly the respondent-complainant ('patient' hereafter) had approached theappellant opposite party with the complaint that some pointed object hadpierced his right foot sole leading to pain and swelling in the affectedportion of the sole. He remained admitted in thehospital from 21-3-05 to 28-4-05 . It was expected of theappellant OP to explore and locate the FB and remove the same, as that was thecomplaint of the patient. Although in the discharge card, it is written thatexploration was done it appears that, apart from incision and drainage (I/D)enough effort was not made to locate and remove the FB. For the second timewhen the patient came to the appellant-opposite party on 4-6-05 , there was cellulitis on the right foot. Although in the discharge card, it is written thatexploration was done it appears that, apart from incision and drainage (I/D)enough effort was not made to locate and remove the FB. For the second timewhen the patient came to the appellant-opposite party on 4-6-05 , there was cellulitis on the right foot. Clinical note on the discharge card (Annexure C-2) mentionsabout I/D done three months back for FIB sensation.Thus, the latter having known the history of the patient should have been moreparticular and careful in tracing the cause of cellulitis and exploring, locating and removing the FB. That they did precious nothing inthis regard and just repeated I/D , and discharged thepatient, proves their negligence in the treatment. Had they visualized thefurther consequences that presence of FB could lead to and referred the patientto some other hospital/doctor or determinedly explored the FB and removed thesame after following the prescribed procedure, the latter would have beenspared the physical and mental agony suffered by him for another period of 3-4months till he consulted Dr. P.K. Lakhatkia andfinally under went another operation in SNH by Dr. Tripathi .Any doctor of average understanding would have prognosticated that presence ofFB would lead to cellulitis , osteomyelitis ( OM ), and more serious consequences in that order. 5.When the patient eventually went to Dr. Lakhatkia on 26-8-05 , he found OM on 3rd metatarsal (MT) base and after culture and sensitivity (c/s) test of pusfound presence of Staphylococcus Aureus (SA) bacteriaand advised operation (Annexure C-4). Finally when the patient went to Shanti Nursing Home for operation, Dr. A.K. Tripathi , as per the discharge ticket dated 11-10-05(Annexure C-5) found the FB, comprising wooden pieces, present underneath theOM cavity area in the base of 3rd MT and removed the same there from, andcuretted the OM cavity. The patient has enclosed FB thus removed from his rightfoot in a cover along with the complaint, this conclusively proves that the FBdid enter the right foot of the patient as per his complaint and the same sincewas not be removed by the appellant opposite party during the two operations,lead to avoidable serious consequences and suffering of the patient. Thus, thediagnosis and treatment done by them was rather perfunctory and reflects theirnegligence in the treatment. Thus, thediagnosis and treatment done by them was rather perfunctory and reflects theirnegligence in the treatment. We, therefore, agree with the finding of thelearned Forum that the charge of medical negligence stands proved against theappellant opposite party and that they are liable to adequately compensate therespondent complainant for the suffering he was thus subjected to, due to theirnegligence. 6.The respondent complainant went to the applicant-OP first time on 19-3-05 for treatment. Because oftheir mishandling of the case he was required to go in for operation threetimes and, besides suffering for nearly 7 months, he had to spend lot of moneyon treatment. That it must have caused a great mental stress is alsounderstandable. He has assessed his total expenses on treatment and incidentalsas Rs . 67,933/-. Keeping this in mind, we are of theview that the compensation awarded is far too inadequate and deserves to beenhanced substantially. In our view, award of a consolidated amount of Rs . 50,000/- as compensation would meet the ends ofjustice. We also deem it appropriate to revise the cost at Forum below to Rs . 2000/-. 7.In the result, Appeal No. 1558/2007 filed by the opposite party fails and isdisallowed. However, Appeal No. 1595/2007 filed by the complainant is allowedin part as above. The impugned order of the learned Forum shall stand modifiedas above. We also direct the appellant OP to bear the cost on behalf of therespondent complainant as well, and the same is quantified as Rs . 3000/-. This order shall be retained in this Appeal No.1558/2007 and copy thereof shall be kept in Appeal No. 1595/2007.