JAI PRAKASH MEHTA Vs. B.N.RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ) by Jai Prakash Mehta, Petitioner herein and Original Complainant before the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission ) being aggrieved by the order of the Fora below, which had dismissed his complaint of medical negligence on the part of Dr. B.N. Rai and Lallan Singh, Respondents No.1 and 2 respectively herein and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 before the State Commission.

(2.) Facts leading to the Petitioner s complaint are that on 26th June, 1998 while he was employed as a contract laborer by Respondent No.2 and working on electrification of a railway line he sustained serious injuries, due to electric shock, which included serious burn injuries on his right arm, and he became unconscious. Respondent No.2 first took him to one Dr. Sanjay Singh, who stated that it was a medico-legal case. However, without informing the police, Respondent No.2 thereafter took him to Respondent No.1/Doctor, who was an ENT Specialist and who advised x-ray of chest and right arm on the same day and prescribed some ointments and medicines. Though he was under medical treatment of the said Respondent No.1/Doctor for over two weeks, there was further deterioration of the burn injuries in his right arm and finally on 12th July, 1998 Respondent No.1/Doctor referred him to the Institute of Medical Sciences & S.S. Hospital, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (for short the Hospital ), where he was informed that gangrene had set in which could not be reversed and his arm had to be amputated. Being aggrieved by the medical negligence on the part of Respondents because of which Petitioner lost his right arm and which had very adverse and serious financial and emotional consequences for him, Petitioner filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtas, Sasaram (for short the District Forum ) on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service against both Respondents and requested that they be directed to pay him a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till payment as also litigation and allied costs.

(3.) Respondents in their written statement denied the allegations made against them. It was contended that Petitioner was not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act since no fees were taken from him by Respondent No.1/Doctor. Further, he had already filed a case before the Labour Court and, therefore, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the case. On merits, it was denied that there was any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Respondents because (i) Respondent No.1/Doctor had provided only first aid to the Petitioner and thereafter referred him to the Hospital for further specialized medical treatment and (ii) on the day of the incident Petitioner was not an employee of Respondent No.2.