B.V. MAHESHWARAPPA Vs. DR. GOPALA RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the original complainant against the order dated 8th July, 2011 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("State Commission" for short) in appeal No. 4047/2011 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order passed by the District Forum, IV-Additional, Bangalore dismissing the complaint (CC No. 1649/2010) filed by the petitioner in limine.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner who claims to be a senior citizen, sustained minor injuries to his right elbow and forearm on 8th January, 2010 and was taken to the respondent's hospital at around 11.30 p.m. for treatment. Doctor on duty who attended on him, informed the petitioner that the surgeon was not available at that time and that he will come only in the morning. Petitioner thereupon requested the doctor on duty to render treatment to him since he could not go to his home and come back again in the morning. Thereafter, the doctor on duty advised the petitioner to get an x-ray of the injured part done for which the petitioner paid Rs. 200/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted to ward No. 216 and was administered medicines through an intravenous drip. According to the petitioner, when the I.V. drip was still being administered, OP No. 1 came to the ward and after examining the wounds of the petitioner, he questioned the doctor on duty as to why drip and the medicines which were unnecessary had been given to the petitioner and thereafter he got the drip removed and advised the petitioner to meet him in the casualty room. In the casualty room, OP No. 1 took some photographs of the wounded part on his mobile phone and applied bandage and discharged the petitioner with an advice to see him later on. At the time of discharge, the petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 5,706/- as charges. During the course of his next visit, petitioner enquired from OP No. 1 as to why he was charged Rs. 3,500/- out of Rs. 5,706/- when no major procedure was done but since there was no satisfactory reply, the petitioner approached OP No. 2/respondent No. 2. Not getting any reply from him also, he lodged consumer complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and the complaint by its impugned order against which the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) We have heard the petitioner who has himself argued his case. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted by the petitioner that his complaint was dismissed by the District Forum in limine without issuing any notice to the respondents/OPs. He has submitted that when he filed the appeal, the State Commission ought to have viewed the matter seriously and remanded the matter back to the District Forum for recording of evidence and passing of necessary orders on merits. He also referred to certain inferences drawn by the State Commission on its own for which it had no basis. In view of this, the petitioner prayed that the impugned order be set aside and matter be sent back to the District Forum for taking up the complaint for admission and deciding it on merits after hearing the parties.