BHIM SINGH Vs. PREM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 14.6.2001 passed by District Forum, Panipat in Complaint Case No. 490 of 2000, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant -complainant against the opposite parties was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts as focussed in the complaint briefly stated are that the complainant had married daughter of Suraj Mal about 3 years ago and thereafter he has been living happily with his wife. However, his father -in -law wanted to re -marriage his daughter and was bent upon breaking his marriage. The complainant was working with Banti Thekedar. A dispute took place between him and Thekedar over the amount due to him. He claimed that a sum of Rs. 15,000 was due to the Thekedar and the Thekedar had maintained that he was only to pay Rs. 13,000 to him. The Thekedar threatened to teach a lesson to him on 20.3.1999. On 26.3.1999 Banti Thekedar, in the company of a person on a false pretext, took the complainant on his motor -cycle to his house where he was beaten mercilessly which resulted in fracture of his legs. He was also burnt with acid and thereafter he was thrown on a railway line in an unconscious condition so as to devise the story of a railway accident. The Railway Police took him to the Civil Hospital, Panipat and got registered a case against Banti bearing FIR No. 60 dated 2.4.1999 under Sections 323/324 read with Sections 34 of the IPC and Section 145 of the Railway Act. The complainant was referred to PGI but was taken to Prem Hospital, Panipat owned by Dr. Prem Kumar -opposite party No. 1. Both Banti and his father -in -law reached the spot and threatened to compromise the matter after receiving Rs. 40,000 from them and if he did not agree to do so, he would repent throughout his life. The complainant declined the offer made. They gratified Dr. Prem Kumar and persuaded him to amputate his both legs though by providing necessary medical treatment amputation could have been avoided by him. The complainant has to spend Rs. two lacs on his treatment. Threafter his father -in -law took his daughter with him in order to remarry her with a rich person. In this manner he had been deceived and rendered invalid in life. In these allegations he invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum claiming compensation amount of Rs. five lacs against the opposite party.

(3.) THE claim was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed several preliminary objections have been taken by him. It was pleaded that concocted and false story has been put up by the complainant in order to cause loss of his reputation, goodwill and harassment to him and that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands. He also claimed professional indemnity as he had insured himself with the Oriental Insurance Company vide policy bearing No. CH 227371 for the period 29.1.1999 to 28.1.2000. On merits, it was stated that tthe complainant has not given any beating or thrashing as alleged by him. It was further averred that the complainant was badly injured in a railway accident and thereafter was got admitted in the Civil Hospital, Panipat by Railway Police, Panipat. After one day of his hospitalizattion, the Incharge of the Civil Hospital was not able to give requisite treatment to him and for that reason recommended for his shifting to a hospital at Rohtak or Delhi. Thereafter, attendant of the complainant brought the complainant to his hospital where he was treated by the Bone Specialist and Orthopaedic Surgeon -Dr. Ritesh Singh, who is a qualified and experienced Orthopaedic Surgeon working in Lala Harbhagwan Dass Memorial and Prem Hospital, Panipat. As the complainant had showed signs of gangrene in affected portion where injuries were suffered by him and started emitting foul smell with blackening of muscles with danger of Toxaemia and poison extending to other parts of the body, he was admitted by Dr. Ritesh Singh and throughout the complainant remained under his treatment. Second opinion of famous Orthopaedic Surgeon -Dr. P.N. Gandhi was aslo obtained, who also suggested amputation of his legs. Accordingly, in order to save life of the complainant, amputation of his legs was done with the written consent of his brother, who had accompanied the complainant. On these premises, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.