ANAMIKA SHARMA Vs. CHHATTISGARH HOSPITAL, ANAMIKA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will decide the two cross-appeals filed against the order passed by the State Consumer District Redressal Commission, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Consumer Complaint No. 4/2009. First Appeal No. 451/2010 filed by the Original Complainant Smt. Anamika Sharma for enhancement of the compensation, while another First Appeal No. 3/2011. filed by Dr. Shankar Rao Keshav Rao Son wane, the opposite party No. 4 for dismissal of the Complaint.

(2.) The Complainant No. 1 Smt. Anamika Sharma is the wife of late Shri Sudhir Sharma, whereas Complainant Nos. 2,3 are his parents. Late Sudhir Sharma (referred herein as "patient") was aged about 32 years, a young person working as Lecturer in Chemical Engineering Department, at Raipur Institute of Technology. He was suffering from low backache. Initially he took physiotherapy at Vivekanand Ashram as per advice of Dr. Mahorkar and Dr. Ashok Kumar. Thereafter, during 28.5.2007 to 2.6.2007 he was taking physiotherapy by Dr. Shankar Rao Sonawade (OP-4) at Centre of OPs-1 and 2 by paying Rs. 20 per day. On 2.6.2007 while receiving physiotherapy (IFT) he suddenly died. Main cause of death of Sudhir Sharma was use of IFT machine for physiotherapy without proper arrangements for voltage control and that time OP No. 4 doctor had gone somewhere else leaving the patient alone. Hence, immediate attention was not provided to the patient. The complainant alleged that OP Nos. 1, 2 and 4 knowingly used such faulty IFT electric machine for physiotherapy at their centre which caused Sudhir's death. Therefore, there was negligence of OP Nos. 1,2 and 4 along with the OP No. 3 i.e. the manufacturer, distributor and repairer of the machine and alleged that all OPs are jointly liable. It was also alleged that consent was not taken by OPs before IFT treatment.

(3.) Complainants filed a complaint before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short State Commission) and have specifically alleged against OP No. 4 and claimed compensation for his negligence, whereas compensation from OP Nos. 1 and 2 has been claimed on the principle of vicarious liability. The Complainants have also claimed compensation from OP No. 3 i.e. the manufacturer of the diathermy machine