R P KHARE Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 19.2.2003 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal dismissing appeal against the order dated 11.10.1999 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to pay amount of Rs. 5,000 with interest and cost to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision, in brief, are these. Dr. S.C. Kohli under whose treatment the respondent was advised the respondent for blood test for malaria. Respondent got the blood tested for that purpose from the petitioner on 3.8.1996 and 21.8.1996. Reports of test were for malaria positive. It was alleged that after blood test on 21.8.1996 the petitioner told the respondent that he is a specialist in malaria and will treat him. Petitioner gave injection and drip to the respondent besides prescribing some medicines. He also advised the respondent to get the second injection injected after two days. Instead of improvement the condition of respondent deteriorated. On 23.8.1996 the respondent again visited the petitioner who further gave injection and drip. Looking at the condition of respondent, his family members took him to Dr. B.K. Mishra who advised admission in District Hospital, Sagar. Despite being treated on 23.8.1996 and 24.8.1996 in District Hospital, Sagar the condition of respondent did not improve. He was, thus, shifted to Jabalpur. Dr. Johri admitted the respondent in Grover Hospital on 25.8.1996 from where he was discharged on 29.8.1996. Alleging negligence in treatment the respondent filed complaint claiming total sum of Rs. 70,000 towards compensation and expenses on treatment which was contested by the petitioner by filing written version. Though it was admitted that the blood of respondent was tested for malaria on 3.8.1996 and 21.8.1996 but it was emphatically denied that respondent claiming to be specialist in malaria treated and gave injections and drips to the respondent on 21.8.1996 and 23.8.1996 which aggravated the condition of respondent as alleged. Liability to pay the claimed amount was denied.

(3.) Submission advanced by Mr. Ashutosh Sharma for petitioner was mainly three fold. First, it was not the case of respondent in the complaint that petitioner was not authorised to conduct blood test for malaria. Petitioner who retired as a District Malaria Officer, established a Pathology Lab at Sagar in which well qualified Lab. Technician was appointed who conduct all Pathological tests. Blood slides of the respondent were also confirmed by the Lab Technician. In support of this submission, attention was invited to para No. 3 of the affidavit of petitioner filed in this Commission and to the application of Mohammad Chand Jamali who was appointed as Lab. Technician by the petitioner. According to Mr. Sharma the finding returned by both the Fora below in regard to petitioner not being authorised to conduct blood test is erroneous. Second, in its order the District Forum heavily relied on three slips alleged to be written by the petitioner in connection with the treatment of respondent. Neither these three slips were filed along with complaint nor connected in the affidavit of respondent filed by way of evidence. Attention was drawn to para No. 11 of the complaint and para No. 10 of the affidavit filed by way of evidence by the respondent before the District Forum. Para No. 11 notices the detail of 21 documents which were filed along with complaint. Three slips in question do not find mention in that para No. 11. In para No. 10 of the affidavit the respondent averred that details of documents filed by him were set out in the said para of the complaint. Third, copies of affidavits of four witnesses and also that of respondent filed by way of evidence were not supplied before the District Forum to the petitioner in order to enable him if all or any one of these witnesses needed to be cross-examined by him. It was pointed out that this ground was specifically taken in para 2.2 of the grounds of appeal but was not considered by the State Commission. Four affidavits of the witnesses pertain to the respondent having been treated by the petitioner. In my view, non-supply of five affidavits had prejudiced the petitioner as regards his defence of having not treated the respondent on 21.8.1996 and 23.8.1996. Case, thus, deserves to be remanded to the District Forum for complaint being decided on merit after ensuring that the copies of five affidavits filed by respondent are supplied to the petitioner and his request, if any, for cross-examining all or any one of the witnesses is duly examined. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of submission first and second above.