B RAI Vs. SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. B. Rai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') has filed the present revision being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 2734/SC/2001 in favour of Shyam Sunder Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent'). In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/Complainant had contended that he had gone to the Petitioner's clinic on 27.7.1998 for treatment of Cholera and the Petitioner/doctor without any examination or diagnosis gave an intravenous injection of a very high dose whereupon Respondent became unconscious. Petitioner/doctor assured his family members that there was no cause for any worry and that the Respondent's condition will improve. However, as a result of this injection, a blood clot was formed in the Respondent's leg. Petitioner/doctor thereafter charged him Rs. 10,000 on the pretext that he would treat the blood clot in the Respondent's leg and also kept him in his clinic and when there was no improvement in the condition of the Respondent for 5 days, Petitioner/doctor referred him to one Dr. Sinha in Gupta's Nursing Home, Jaunpur where the doctor after examination informed the Respondent that due to wrong administration of the injection through intravenous route instead of the intramuscular route, Respondent had developed this blood clot and he should immediately contact and seek the advice of Dr. B.S. Upadhyay who was a Government Physician. Dr. Upadhyay immediately got the Respondent admitted in a hospital and despite treatment there was no improvement because Gas Gangrene had developed as a result of the wrongly administered intravenous injection. Respondent was, therefore, advised to go to a bigger hospital for his treatment and he was accordingly referred to Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate Institute, Lucknow and later to King George's Medical College Hospital, Lucknow which again referred him to Noida Medical Centre, Noida where doctors after examination told him that due to the injection given through the intravenous route in his right leg the only treatment to deal with Gas Gangrene would be amputating it. Therefore, Respondent's leg was amputated from the thigh. Alleging extreme medical negligence and wrong treatment by the Petitioner/doctor, Respondent sought compensation of Rs. 4 lakh, Rs. 60,000 for medical expenses and Rs. 30,000 for mental agony from the Petitioner/doctor. Petitioner/ doctor, however, declined to pay him this compensation and, therefore, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service and sought the above reliefs.

(2.) In his response to the complaint, Petitioner/doctor denied the above contentions and stated that he was a qualified Government doctor and was transferred from Machlishahar, Jaunpur to Varanasi in 1987 itself when the cause of complaint arose. Petitioner/doctor did not have any clinic in Machlishahar and the statement of the Respondent that he had visited his clinic for treatment of Cholera and an intravenous injection was given to him is false and concocted. Petitioner/doctor also denied that he had treated the Respondent for any ailment or subsequently for the blood clot or that he had referred him to Gupta Nursing Home. Petitioner further denied that he had given any letter of reference for further treatment to Respondent and stated that he was also not aware of any facts as stated by the Respondent in his complaint.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record dismissed the complaint on the grounds that no credible evidence had been filed by the Respondent to prove that the intravenous injection was administered to him by the Petitioner/doctor or that the Petitioner had referred him to the clinic of Dr. Gupta following the development of a blood clot as a result of the intravenous injection. The referral slip of Dr. B. Rai referring him to another doctor filed in evidence by the Respondent, cannot be relied on because this document does not contain either the name of the patient or any date, nor does it state that any injection was administered to the patient. It only states that he was referring a case to Dr. Sinha at Gupta Nursing Home for deep vein thrombophlebitis. District Forum also took cognizance of a letter filed by the Petitioner/doctor in support of his case wherein the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi had certified that the Petitioner /doctor had remained at headquarters in Varanasi from 14.7.1998 to 18.8.1998 and had not taken any leave during that period and, therefore, he could not have attended to the patient in Machlishahar, Jaunpur on 27.7.1998 as contended by Respondent. District Forum further observed that the affidavits of 8 persons filed by the Respondent stating that he had been wrongly administered an intravenous injection by the Petitioner/ doctor which resulted in the blood clot could not be relied upon because these were all identically worded affidavits and none of them indicated that they were personally present at the scene/time of the treatment. Further, none of the doctors who examined the Respondent subsequently had in the medical case-histories stated that the Petitioner/doctor had wrongly treated the Respondent. In view of these facts, the District Forum concluded that at the time when the Respondent was given treatment at Machlishahar, Jaunpur, Petitioner/doctor was posted at Varanasi Headquarters and therefore, he had not obviously treated the Respondent nor administered the IV injection resulting in the medical complaint.