K V NARAYANI Vs. P GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant in O. P. No.218/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod is the appellant. Complainant's case in brief is as follows. She consulted the opposite party doctor during September, 1996 due to fever and chest infection. During the course of the treatment she developed itching and other discomforts in the mouth and eyes. She reported the matter to the opposite party, who stated that the same was due to lack of vitamin-B-complex and he prescribed vitamin B complex and asked her to report back after three days which she did when was directed to continue the medicine. The ailment did not subside; on 14.10.1996 she went to the Govt. Hospital, Kanhangad where she consulted R. W.3, ENT specialist and he referred her to R. W.4 Eye Specialist. Though they attended her there was no improvement. They referred her to SDM Eye Hospital, Mangalore where P. W.2 diagnosed her ailment as Steven Johnson Syndrome due to sulpha reaction. She was also attended by P. W.2 skin specialist. He issued Exts. A2, A3 and A4 prescriptions, whereas P. W.3 issued Ext. A1 prescription. Due to Steven Johnson Syndrome the glands supplying tears to the eyes were destroyed, the eyes became dry and she developed photo phibia and became blind as she cannot open her eyes sufficiently. This has affected her work as a Beedi maker, she could not attend her work and this was the result of the failure of the opposite party to treat her with the care and diligence expected of a physician. He administered antibiotic containing sulpha without conducting the test as to sensivivity. Though she had sent notice to the opposite party stating the cause of her ailment, he sent reply denying the same. She alleges that since she suffered injury due to the negligence of the opposite party, doctor, herself is entitled to the compensation claimed.

(2.) In the version filed by the opposite party, doctor, though he admitted that the complainant approached him for treatment for chest infection and fever and had put on a short course of antibiotic and anty phyritic drugs, she had signs of conjunctivities and glossities. She had no ailment due to drug reaction. During the course of the treatment he asked her to stop the treatment and report after three days. Since she reported that there was improvement he asked her to continue the treatment and though he wanted to report back after a week she did not turn up. He denied the allegation of negligence. He maintained that during the course of his treatment there was no signs of Steven Johnson Syndrome or any allergic disorder. He wanted dismissal of the complaint. On behalf of the complainant Exts. A1 to A12 were produced. The case sheet of Govt. Hospital, Kanhangad was produced and marked as Ext. X1. On the side of the complainant, complainant gave evidence as P. W.1 and examined P. Ws.2 and 3 the doctors of the SDM Hospital, Mangalore. On the side of the opposite parties the opposite party examined himself as R. W.1 and he also examined R. Ws.2 to 4. On a consideration of the said evidence the District Forum found that the complainant failed to establish deficiency alleged by her and in that view dismissed the complaint. It is the said dismissal that is under challenge in this appeal by the complainant.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the complainant maintained that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that there was a specific plea that the opposite party prescribed medicine containing sulpha which resulted in sulpha reaction. When the opposite party was approached he tried to console her by saying that the same was due to want of vitamin B complex. In the version filed by the opposite party he did not specifically deny the same. Thus the learned Counsel highlighted as according to him the reaction which the complainant suffered was due to administration of medicine containing sulpha. The point urged by the learned Counsel is applying Order VIII Rules 3 and 5 since there is no specific denial, the fact that the opposite party administered medicine containing sulpha has to be taken to have been admitted and since an admitted fact need not be proved, the District Forum should have found as a matter of fact the opposite party during the course of treatment had administered such medicine which ultimately resulted in the present disability of the complainant. The learned Counsel also sought to maintain that the said aspect is seen to have been reinforced, as according to the learned Counsel when the complainant visited the opposite party, the opposite party got the prescription from her and substituted it with another prescription. This itself would demonster that the opposite party was aware as to the defect in his treatment which ultimately resulted in the injury to the complainant. He relied on the evidence of P. Ws.2 and 3 in support of his argument that the doctors who attended the complainant at Mangalore and Exts. A1 to A4 would show that the complainant suffered from Steven Johnson Syndrome and that the same was drug reaction. It is urged by the learned Counsel, the fact that the opposite party had administered medicine containing sulpha medicine is also mentioned in the notice sent by the complainant on behalf of the complainant. The cumulative effect of the attending circumstance would corroborate the evidence of P. W.1 and according to the learned Counsel had the evidence been appreciated in the proper perspective the District Forum could not have reached the conclusion it did. According to him the opposite party did not take the care expected of him, and because of the failure in taking the said care the complainant suffered injury consequently the complainant was entitled to the relief prayed for.