SHAM LAL Vs. SAROJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed by both the parties against the order of the State Commission allowing the complaint filed by the complainant Mrs. Saroj Rani and others - widow, children and parents of the deceased Shri Ravinder Kumar. Facts necessary to appreciate the case are that the deceased Ravinder and his wife went to one Dr. Soni - their Physician - for check up/treatment. Late Mr. Ravinder Kumar complained to the Doctor about pain in abdomen which he got the night before. The doctor diagnosed this to be a case of Left Rental Colic and prescribed the following medicines : (i) Cap. Spasm Proxyvon (Pain Killer) (ii) Inj. Proluton (iii) Lig. Citrika, and (iv) Calcurosin

(2.) The doctor had advised that injection to be taken intramuscularly. According to the complainant the deceased went to purchase those medicines from Jagdish Medical Hall (Chemist). The said injection was given by the Chemist and was advised to get it injected from the Chemist's father, Dr. Sham Lal who runs a clinic adjacent to the Chemist shop. This injection was administered intravenously as a result of which his body started trembling and within few minutes Ravinder Kumar died on the spot as a result of the injection being administered intravenously as against the common knowledge that the injection is to be administered intramuscularly. It is the negligence on the part of Dr. Sham Lal which resulted in the untimely death of Shri Ravinder Kumar at the age of 32. Alleging negligence on the part of the respondents, a complaint was filed by the widow, children and parents before the State Commission who after hearing both the parties, material produced and going through the affidavits filed by the parties directed the respondents to pay Rs. 6 lakh - Rs. 2 lakh to the complainant, widow of late Shri Ravinder Kumar, Rs. 1 lakh each to the three children, and Rs. 50,000/- each to the parents and cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

(3.) It is against this order that both the parties have filed two separate appeals. While Appeal No. 132/2001 filed by the respondents is for setting aside the order of the State Commission, the other Appeal No. 163/2001 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation.