LAD KANWAR Vs. R M SINGHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum on 25.01.1996 against the OP Dr. R.M. Singhavi Sr. Specialist in Maharao Bheemsingh Hospital, Kota who is Respondent herein, stating that on having complaint of abdomen pain which did not subside, her husband took her to the residence of the OP at Civil Lines, Kota for consultation on 19.01.1994. According to the complainant, the OP charged Rs. 40/-for consultation fees and prescribed some medicines on his letterhead. Certain tests were suggested and the complainant was asked to get admitted into the Government Hospital at Kota. It is alleged that in spite of knowledge that the complainant was having blood sugar, the OP administered 4 to 5 glucose bottles to her during her treatment by him up to 28.01.1994 which, according to her, increased her blood sugar. Because of this, she suffered acute swelling and pain started in her legs but in spite of her request to stop the glucose, the OP did not heed to her request. On 28.01.1994, when skin of her toes had blackened, her husband was advised by OP to take her to Jaipur and show her to Dr. Baldawa in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Accordingly, after consulting Dr. Baldawa, she was admitted into SMS Hospital and felt some improvement in the left leg. She was discharged from S Ms Hospital, Jaipur on 03.03.1994 but it became clear that there was no way except amputation of the toes of her legs. She, therefore, got admitted in Santokaba Durlabhji Hospital, Jaipur and was discharged on 10.03.1994 and was advised operation of toes of both the legs. The case of the complainant was that the treatment, which was given to her by the Respondent/OP at Kota was not proper and there was negligence on his part as a result of which, she developed trouble in toes on account of wrong administration of glucose especially when in her report blood sugar was found. She, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs. 3 lakh from the OP in her complaint before the District Forum. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. When the order of the District Forum was challenged by the complainant before the State Commission in appeal, it did not find any favour with the State Commission which dismissed the appeal as well as the complaint vide its order dated 14.09.2006 which is now under challenge through the present revision petition.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent and have also perused the record placed before us. The District Forum even while holding that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, looked into the merits of the case on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties and concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant had failed to prove the fact that gangrene, which had developed in the toes, was because of negligence on the part of the OP. In the impugned order, the State Commission has overruled the finding on the first point and has treated the complainant as a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1986. We agree with this finding of the State commission particularly taking into consideration the submission made by the counsel for the Petitioner before us that the husband of the complainant is a government servant and hence even though she received treatment free of charge in the Government Hospital at Jaipur where she was admitted from 19.01.1994, she would be treated as a consumer in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Thamappa Kotgiri v. G.M. Central Railways and Ors., 2006 3 CPJ 6 wherein it has been held that where medical service is rendered as part of terms of service, this would not amount to free service and would constitute "service" for purposes of the Consumer Protect Act. However, so far as the allegation of deficiency in service on account of medical negligence on the part of OP/Respondent is concerned, no infirmity could be found with the concurrent finding of the fora below. It is well settled proposition that when the complainant alleges medical negligence on the part of OP, the onus of proving the same squarely lies on the complainant. Based on the pleadings and evidence adduced, both the fora below have carefully examined this aspect and have dismissed the allegations of the complainant against the OP Doctor. We do not consider it necessary to reproduce the detailed analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties done by the fora below in this regard. It has to be noted that the Respondent who treated her in the hospital at Jaipur being conscious of the fact that the complainant's blood report had indicated blood sugar in her sample, had taken due care by adding normal saline and insulin in the glucose bottles. Besides this, the doctors who treated her after her shifting from Kota to Jaipur have also opined that the treatment which she received at Kota was appropriate and no negligence could be made out in that respect. Specific certificates of Dr. V.S. Baldwa Sr. Physician, SMS Hospital, Jaipur and Dr. Surendra Kumar Sharma another Sr. Physician are placed on record and have been considered in this regard. We have also noted that even though the allegations of negligence are in respect of the treatment at Government Hospital Kota, that Hospital was never included as a party to the complaint. Taking into consideration all these important aspects, we do not find any substance in the revision petition and hence dismiss the same but with no order as to costs.