JUDGMENT : S.K. Kulshrestha , J.:- Theseappeals have been filed against the order dated 24-3-2005 of the DistrictForum, Gwalior passed in Complaint Case No. 376/2001,by which the District Forum has found Dr. A.K. Dubey negligent in rendering medical service and ordered to pay compensation of Rs . 5,000/-, expenses of Rs ,2,000/- and costs of the litigation in the sum of Rs .1,000/-. The facts are taken from Appeal No. 1382/2005 for convenience unlessotherwise stated. 2.It is not disputed that the complainant ( Shaqeel Qureshi ) was under treatment of Dr. A.K. Dubey for a substantial period as he sustained fracture ofneck of femur. Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that on 28-9-1998 Shaqeel Qureshi had sustainedfracture of hip joint and he was operated by Dr. Dubey .He was again shown on 10-11-1998, 16-1-1999 and 2-2-1999 to Dr. Dubey in which he given prescription, but despiteconsumption of heavy doses of medicines his pain did not abate. On 12-7-1999 headvised X-ray, but without disclosing the contents of X-ray he changed themedicines. He was again shown to Dr. Dubey on4-10-1999, 20-10-1999, 10-11-1999, 25-12-1999 and 24-2-2000. The pain stillpersisted. After X-ray taken out on 12-7-1999 ,it was revealed that the operation performed by Dr. Dubey was not successful, and therefore, he kept the admission card and dischargeticket in his possession and on 24-2-2000 the screws were taken out. When the patient was shown to Dr.V.P. Middha who diagnosed the patient to be a case oflimp plus mild shortening. He suggested operation again. Dr. Chandok also advised operation. The patient was taken toAIMS where also it was confirmed shortening was due to mal-union of the boneand eventually the patient was brought back and operation was performed by Dr.D.K. Gupta. 3.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It isluculent that it was a case of fracture, the operation of which was performedby Dr. Dubey and as the pain did not abate, secondoperation was performed on 20-12-2002 .Thus, for three years Dr. Dubey permitted the defectto persist by not undertaking operation which was advised by all other doctorsincluding orthopaedic surgeons. 4.The opposite party-Dr. Dubey has stated in his replythat the fracture of the neck of femur is ticklish and some times it takesmonths to unite Though the patient was being broughtto him frequently, he did not feel that another operation was necessary. In this connection, a passage from Charles. 4.The opposite party-Dr. Dubey has stated in his replythat the fracture of the neck of femur is ticklish and some times it takesmonths to unite Though the patient was being broughtto him frequently, he did not feel that another operation was necessary. In this connection, a passage from Charles. A Rockwood, Jr.David P. Green. Robert W. Bucholz "FR A CTU RES"on 1481 shows that despite these advances in the management of femoral neckfractures in certain situations we must still refer to this entity as theunsolved fractures. 5.In the Forum, Dr. D.K. Gupta was examined as witness of the complainant. Heclearly opined that on 31-10-1998 Dr. Dubey had operated patient and in the hip jointto the head of the femur he had used two calculated screws. He further statedthat if the joint does not unite, the chances of its uniting after six monthsbecome reduced. The delayed union takes place as supply of blood is reduced inthis area. He also said that sometimes screws became loose, and therefore, insuch cases they should be taken out and further treatment must be given immediately.However, in cross-examination Dr. D.K. Gupta has conceded that he had notstated that Dr. Dubey had committed any negligence intreating the patient. 6.The short question emerges for our consideration is as to whether Dr. Dubey was negligent and if so, what compensation would bereasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 7.As seen from record, the patient ( Shaqeel Qureshi ) comes from an ordinary family. Despite having beentreated on 1-10-1998 , 10-11-1998 , 16-1-1999 and 2-2-1999 the pain did not abate and on 12-7-1999 when X-ray was taken themedicines were changed. This shows that Dr. Dubey hadwrongly treated the fracture and had given different medicines than themedicines required. The patient also visited the same doctor (Dr. Dubey ) on 4-10-1999 , 20-10-1999 , 25 -12-1999 and 24-2-2000 . Ultimately on 4-2-2000 , which rules out the negligence. After 17 monthsscrews were taken out as has been established. Dr. Middha also said that he suffered limp/shortening of bone. He suggested anotheroperation. Dr. Chandak also suggested anotheroperation. The patient also went to AIMS on 9-10-2000 where also he was diagnosed to be a case ofshortening of the bone and requiring operation of the hip joint. 8.It is clear from the dates given that right up to 24-2-2000 the patient had confidence in Dr. Dubey and his professional capability. He suggested anotheroperation. Dr. Chandak also suggested anotheroperation. The patient also went to AIMS on 9-10-2000 where also he was diagnosed to be a case ofshortening of the bone and requiring operation of the hip joint. 8.It is clear from the dates given that right up to 24-2-2000 the patient had confidence in Dr. Dubey and his professional capability. Even if there wassome variation from the normal procedure but that by itself cannot attributenegligence to the doctor. None of the doctors have stated that Dr. Dubey was remiss in his treatment or neglected the patient.The only negligence that can be attributed to the doctor is right from 1-10-1998 to 24-2-2000 . Dr. Dubey did not diagnose the neck of the femur properly and allowed it to remainuncured and did not advice second operation. Considering that there was somenegligence of the doctor, we have to see as to what should be the compensation. 9.The complainant ( Shaqeel Qureshi )is not a very rich person. It is also clear that he must have spent some moreamount than necessary on account of the treatment of the doctor. We considerthat a compensation of Rs . 20,000/-shall be proper.Therefore, we direct the opposite parties to pay to complainant ( Shaqeel Qureshi ) compensation of Rs . 20,000/-. The other reliefs granted by the District Forum regarding costs of medicines Rs .2,000/- and costs of complaint Rs . 1,000/- shallremain unaltered. 10.With the above modification both these appeals are disposed of.