K MAHABALA BHATT Vs. K KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an order of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the appeal of the petitioners was rejected after due consideration of the pleas raised by the petitioners.

(2.) In brief, the facts leading to the present revision petition are that the petitioner and his wife, Dr. Mrs. K. Seetalakshmi from Kasaragod, Taluk Mangalpady, are both holding a qualification in practising in medicines known as GCIM. They are giving medicines to patients but did not have specialization in surgical procedures. On 27.12.1994, one Mrs. Geeta, wife of the respondent consulted the petitioners for termination of pregnancy. On the same date she was admitted in their Nursing Home when the petitioners found that she was carrying a dead foetus. The questions whether they could resort to surgical procedure in which they were not specialised, were duly considered and after due consideration, it has been found that even if they could take up such a matter in extreme urgency but they should not have done so in the present case because the patient was not in a situation where there was an immediate danger to the life of the patient and there was enough time to reach the patient to an appropriate Centre for such a surgical procedural. The petitioners resorted to these procedures and as a consequence thereof, the life of the deceased was lost. Infact the Courts below have needlessly gone into the question as to whether the petitioners who held the qualification of GCIM from Karnataka State could not practise in Kerala State. They need not have gone into this question keeping in view the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Counsel Act, 1970. For that reason we need not go into this question further and this question is left open. We have perused the impugned order and do not find any jurisdictional error or any other ground which calls for our interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The compensation which has been awarded by the State Commission is quite fair.

(3.) Mr. Krishnamani, learned Counsel for the appellant, pointed out that there could be possibility of a double recovery. We make it clear that it is only the compensation of Rs. 2,01,000/- which will be payable by the petitioners. In case any payments have already been made to the respondent and the amount deposited with the District Forum, the same shall be adjusted and the balance will be paid over to the respondents. We have been informed that the deceased has been survived by her seven children. Four out of those seven are minors. It is, therefore, directed that the proportionate amount will be invested in the name of said minors for the period of their minority, in fixed deposit accounts and the balance amount shall be paid over to Mr. K. Krishna and the adult children of the deceased. The petition is disposed of in terms as mentioned above. Petition disposed of.