PREETAM LAL Vs. PREM SINGH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Shri Preetam Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner'), who is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, which while substantially upholding the order of the District Forum reduced the amount to be paid to Petitioner as compensation by the Respondent in this case - Dr Prem Singh Verma.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, his wife Smt Pramila Verma became very weak after the delivery of a child on 20.02.2002, and he therefore, requested the Respondent to give her a medical check-up. The Respondent gave her an injection and charged Rs.80/- for the service. Because of this injection, Petitioner's wife developed severe pain in her leg Petitioner therefore, immediately contacted the Respondent for further medical advice. The Respondent, however, informed him that there was no need to worry or give any further medication. When the pain in the leg increased, Petitioner requested the Respondent to examine her but he did not turn up despite assurances to do so. Petitioner, admitted his wife to Government District Hospital on the night of 28.02.2002, where the doctors informed him that her medical condition was the result of reaction due to wrong medicine injected in her. Petitioner was then advised to take his wife to a specialized medical center. She was taken to Christian Fellowship Hospital, Rajnandgaon, from where she was referred to Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai, where she expired on 22.03.2002. The cause of death was certified as 'Septicemia and Rt. Lower Limb Nacrotisi Fastitis (death of areas of tissues or bone surrounded by healthy parts). Even during the period of hospitalization, the Respondent did not cooperate but wrote a letter that he would bear all the expenses for the treatment. The deceased is survived by four very small children between the ages of 1 1/2 month to 8 years old. Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondent seeking a total compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh for deficiency in service.

(3.) The District Forum after considering the evidence produced before it by both the parties including the affidavits of witnesses, reached a finding that, the complaint of the Petitioner is based on credible evidence and therefore District Forum admitted the complaint. The operative portion of the District Forum's order is as follows: