P K THIRUMANICKAM Vs. ABDULKAREEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainants case is as follows : The complainants elder son namely Moorthy complained of pain in both the legs on the night of 13.11.1996. The second complainant immediately took him to the opposite party who is a Government Doctor and is also practising as a doctor privately. The opposite party assured them that he will become alright and administered an injection and collected a fee of Rs. 25/ -. On the next day of 14.11.1996 at about 3.30 a.m., Moorthy cried out in pain stating that he could not move his leg and that he is not able to urinate and that he has no sense of feeling of his legs. Immediately he was taken to the opposite party, who again administered some medicines and after giving an injection stated that nothing was wrong with Moorthy and that he is only feigning. He further advised that Moorthy be given plenty of water so that he will pass urine. He also told when asked that there was no necessity to take him to any specialist for treatment. On the advice of the opposite party, he was admitted in the private clinic of the opposite party as an inpatient and was treated there. Moorthy also took water continuously but still he could not pass urine and he could not move his legs. The opposite party did not pay heed to the request of the complainants to bring an Urilogist. On 14.11.1996 namely on the same day at about 7.30 a.m., they heard the cry of Moorthy and they went to the opposite party and informed him about the same. The opposite party then without making any tests, injected him with Pencilin whereupon Moorthy fell unconscious and his respiration also stopped. He died on the spot. Knowing fully well that he had died, the opposite party gave a letter to Dr. Ragunathan of Kulithalai and directed the complainants to take Moorthy to the clinic of Dr. Ragunathan for treatment. When Moorthy was taken to the clinic of Dr. Ragunathan, on examination Dr. Ragunathan told that Moorthy is already dead and that the opposite party has also written so in his referral. Moorthy was aged only about 30 years at the time of his death. He was running a Mat Manufacturing Unit and was earning Rs. 5,000/ - per month. On account of the deficiency in service of the opposite party, they have lost an affectionate son and also lost earnings upon which the complainants depended for their living. Therefore, the complaint has been laid for a direction to the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,95,000/ -.

(2.) THE opposite party filed his version stating as follows : The complaint has been filed to blackmail and intimidate the opposite party with a view to extort money from him. When the complainants son Moorthy was brought to him, he was examined by the opposite party, who found that neurologist should be consulted and gave a letter to the complainant to consult Dr. Sundararajan of Tiruchirapalli. To give him immediate relief from pain, he was injected and given a prescription of oral analgesics. The opposite party never said that he would cure him. The next day morning, the first complainant alone came. He said then that he could not take the patient to Dr. Sundararajan and that the patient is still complaining of pain and asked the opposite party to give treatment to him. The opposite party said that without investigation report and expert opinion, he could not give any prescription and asked the first complainant to do the test for patient and rush to Dr. Sundararajan so that the treatment can be started immediately. It is not true to say that he examined the patient and administered any injection on that day. Nor he said that the patient was feigning illness. The said Moorthy was not admitted as an inpatient nor he was given any pencilin injection. The complainants have not taken any steps to approach the doctor in Kulithalai or at Trichy. After sometime the patient was brought in a critical condition and on examination, the opposite party found the pulse rate, B.P. and respiratory rate were very low and, therefore, he suggested that he should be immediately taken to Dr. Ragunathan s Clinic at Kulithalai. Moorthy was never admitted as an inpatient in the clinic of the opposite party. The opposite party also did not reject the request to consult the expert. He was not injected with Pencilin. It is not true to say that the patient fell unconscious and died on the spot. He was alive when the patient left from the opposite party s clinic. It is not true to say that the opposite party was aware that Moorthy was dead and still he gave a letter to Dr. Ragunathan. It is also not correct to say that Dr. Ragunathan informed them that the patient had already died and that the opposite party had written so. The opposite party is not aware of the educational qualifications of the deceased or about his earning capacity. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is not liable to make any payment. To the notice sent by the complainants, suitable reply has been given.

(3.) THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trichy dismissed the complaint and aggrieved by the same the present appeal is preferred by the complainants.