LAWS(MPCDRC)-2009-11-1

RAM SINGH RAI Vs. RANNO BAI BARKADE

Decided On November 13, 2009
Ram Singh Rai Appellant
V/S
Ranno Bai Barkade Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal arises from the order dated 21.8.2006, passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Seoni, directing the appellant, Dr. Ramsingh Rai, to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation and cost Rs. 500 to the respondent -complainant, Smt. Ranno Bai Barkade, on the ground of medical negligence allegedly committed by him.

(2.) THE facts in brief as depicted by the respondent -complaint, are that she consulted Dr. Rai for fever on 10.8.2005. He gave her some medicines and injections and also prescribed some medicines. She took the prescribed medicines but there was no improvement in the condition. Her husband informed Dr. Rai of the situation. Dr. Rai then examined her at the residence and again gave her some injection. Some time after receiving the injection she developed blisters on her mouth, which slowly spread over her entire body. When her husband went to the doctor again, he kept all the remaining medicines and the prescription and refused to treat her further. She was then taken to Government Hospital, Seoni. As the blisters had spread all over her body, her vision also suffered. Then the doctors advised her to go to Nagpur. She was admitted at Chandak Hospital, Nagpur, from 18.8.2005 to 23.8.2005. The treatment continued for another 2 -3 months. The respondent states that though she has recovered, her vision has deteriorated. A report was also lodged with the police against the doctor.

(3.) THE appellant, Dr. Rai, denies treating the respondent at all. He states that he uses only homeopathic medicines and does not give any injections. He contends that homeopathic medicines do not cause any reaction. He further avers that his wife is an LIC agent. The respondent's husband had taken a policy. As he was unable to pay one premium, had taken a policy. As he was unable to pay one premium, the appellant's wife deposited it on his behalf. When this money was demanded from the respondent's husband, he filed this false case.