SHYAM SUNDER TANTIA Vs. DEEPIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 21.1.1994 made by the District Forum, Sriganganagar in Complaint Case No.730/1992 awarding Rs.25,000/- each against the present appellants plus some other claims.

(2.) The relevant facts are these : dr. Charanjeet Sharma appellant in Appeal No.57/1994 is in Government Service as a doctor and at the relevant time was posted as Medical Officer with Seth Kesar Chand Agarwal Memorial Hospital, Vijaynagar. Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia runs his mental hospital at Sriganganagar. The case of the complainant, minor Deepika under the guardianship of father Lajpat Rai was that the complainant was born on 10.8.1991 and since she fell ill, her guardian consulted Dr. Charanjeet Sharma at his residence and the said Doctor after receiving a fee of Rs.25/- directed the guardian to bring the child at the Government Hospital on the following day where he would examine her, that on the following day the guardian of the complainant produced the child before Dr. Charanjeet Sharma who after examining her but without test injected her thrice for DTP polio, that by 17.1.1992 the child developed high fever whereupon the guardian again consulted Dr. Charanjeet Sharma at his residence and again paid a fee of Rs.25/-, that after examining the child Dr. Charanjeet Sharma prescribed Gardinal Tablet 60 mg. to be administered to the child for one month, that the child did not show any improvement whereupon the guardian again consulted Dr. Charanjeet Sharma who then advised him to take the child to Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia, appellant in Appeal No.28/1994, that the complainant after paying a fee of Rs.450/- got the child examined by Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia who carried on the E. E. G. test and opined that the child was suffering from epilepsy. Allegedly Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia further advised the guardian of the child to keep the child on Gardinal Tablet for next five years. The complainant continued to consume the medicine prescribed by two appellants for some time but her condition continued to deteriorate, as stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent at Bar, the child practically became a mental patient. These facts were placed by the respondent before the District Forum which accepted them and decreed the claim of the respondent against the two appellants in the manner stated above.

(3.) Despite notice of hearing to the appellant none appeared for him in Appeal No.57/1994. Therefore, the Counsel for the appellant Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia and the Counsel for the respondent in both these appeals were heard.