BALESHWAR PRASAD Vs. FIRTU DAS MAHANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALESHWAR Prasad and his brother Sidheshwar Prasad have challenged the judgment and order dated 24.1.2003 passed on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Dhanbad, whereby they have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainant who is the unfortunate father of diseased minor son aged 13 years, died due to laches and negligence on the part of the appellants while injecting the medicine in their clinic.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the disputes are that while the minor son of the complainant was coming from school at 3 p.m., he suddently complained of severe headache along with high fever. The boy was taken to the dispensary of the complainants for treatment. The appellant No. 2 who is the brother of appellant No. 1 performed his duties of a compounder, injected medicine. Finding no improvement, the boy was administered 2nd injection. Lastly he left the patient with advice to get the patient treated somewhere. Immediately the minor boy was brought to the Bhuli Central Hospital but the doctor declared the minor boy brought dead, at about 9 p.m. It is relevant to mention here that during the period of treatment by the appellant No. 2, the appellant No. 1 nowhere came in the picture. An F.I.R. was lodged which was registered at Dhanbad, Bhuli Bank More, PS Case No. 494/1998. Pursuant thereto the opposite party was arrested and sent to jail. Simultaneously the complainant approached the District Forum for compensation.

(3.) ON being noticed, the appellants appeared and filed their response. It is alleged on behalf of the appellant No. 1 that the allegations against him are totally false and fabricated inasmuch as he was totally absent from the dispensary at the relevant time. Similarly, the appellant No. 2 has denied the allegations made against him and alleged that his duty is to work under the direction of doctor. It is further alleged that the complainant has not produced any prescription of the doctor to show that he administered any injection and hence the allegations made against him are totally false and fabricated. It is further alleged that the examination report also des not support the allegation of the complainant that he administered any poison to the minor boy through injection. However, both the appellants have admitted that they are running a dispensary and performing the duties that of a doctor and compounder with the knowledge of the people of the locality. The District Forum after hearing the parties and going through the materials available on record has passed the order which is under challenge before us as stated above.