YASH Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by Petitioner/Complainant under Sec. 21(b) against the impugned Order dtd. 24/5/2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in F.A. No. 227 of 2016, vide which the Appeal filed by the Complainant was partly allowed and the Order of the District Forum was modified.

(2.) The factual background, in brief is that on 8/3/2013, Parmod Kumar, the Complainant, experiencing health discomfort, sought medical consultation from Dr. Ajit Singh (Respondent No. 1). Subsequent to an examination, the Respondent No. 1 directed the Complainant to Dr. Jagbir at Adrash Diagnostic Center for an HIV test. Upon conducting the HIV Test, the Respondent No. 2 declared the Complainant to be free of HIV, and in good health in that regard. However, despite this diagnosis, the Respondent No. 1, upon reviewing the reports from Respondent No. 2 in conjunction with his own presumptive diagnosis, treated the Complainant for tuberculosis (T.B.) using allopathic remedies. Nevertheless, the Complainant, finding no respite from the prescribed treatment, sought medical assistance at PGIMS Rohtak on 22/8/2013. At the A.R.T. Center, PGIMS Rohtak, the Complainant was diagnosed with HIV and Tuberculosis. Additionally, on the same date, the Complainant underwent another testing procedure under the supervision of the Respondent No. 2, yielding results consistent with the previous report issued on 10/3/2013. Seeking corroborative evidence, the Complainant approached Dr. Lal Path Labs at Hanuman Road, New Delhi, which confirmed the findings of PGIMS, Rohtak. In these circumstances, the complainant claims to have undergone tremendous mental and physical distress due to the collective actions of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from 8/3/2013 to 21/8/2013. It is also the case of the Complainant that had the initial diagnostic procedures conducted on 8/3/2013 been executed with greater care, the adverse deterioration of the Complainant's condition might have been averted, preventing the ensuing demise attributed to negligence and service deficiencies by the Respondents. The original Complainant i.e. Parmod Kumar died due to delayed treatment of HIV and Tuberculosis. However, his minor son Yash was made party to the complaint before District Forum Jhajjar, represented through his real uncle Ompal.

(3.) The District Forum vide its Order dtd. 14/12/2015 partly allowed the Complaint. The relevant extracts of the Order of the District Forum are set out as below -