SATISH CHATURVEDI Vs. YADRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the aforesaid appeals are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them common questions of law and facts are involved and they have been preferred against the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur in Case No.127/2003. Appeal No.2266/2004 dr. Satish Chaturvedi V/s. Yadram

(2.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur by which the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent under Sec.12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed partially in the manner that the appellant was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. one lac as compensation and Rs.1,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant-respondent on account of medical negligence in treating the son of the complainant-respondent.

(3.) It arises in the following circumstances: the complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act of 1986 before the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur on 21.5.2003 stating inter alia that his son Jitendra (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was healthy, intelligent and energetic youth and he was a mechanic of radio and television. It was further stated in the complaint that on 14.4.2003 at about 7.30 p. m. deceased had fever and, therefore, deceased was brought to the clinic of the appellant by the complainant-respondent for treatment, where appellant gave two injections to the deceased without caring as to from which disease, the deceased was suffering. It was further stated in the complaint that as soon as injections were given by the appellant to the deceased, spot in round shape and blister appeared on the body of the deceased and despite that, deceased was sent to his house by the appellant. It was further stated in the complaint that at about 9.30 p. m. on the same day i. e. , on 14.4.2003, condition of the deceased deteriorated, upon which, appellant was contacted on phone through Shipa Medical Store and the appellant asked the person sitting in the Medical Store to give two tablets to the deceased, which were taken by the deceased and these two tablets were given by the appellant without seeing the condition of the deceased. It was further stated in the complaint that at about 3.30 a. m. , the condition of the deceased further deteriorated and thereafter, deceased was brought to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he was declared dead and post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was also got conducted and the complainant-respondent had also got registered FIR in the Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur. It was further stated in the complaint that as soon as appellant gave two injections to the deceased when deceased was brought to his clinic for the first time, they created reaction in the body of the deceased, but the appellant did not take that matter seriously and at that time, the appellant did not refer the deceased to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur and rather, the appellant sent the deceased to his house and thus, in treating the deceased, there was medical negligence on the part of the appellant. It was further stated in the complaint that as per post mortem report, the cause of death of deceased was reaction of the drugs and thus, from this point of view also, the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased. Hence, the present complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent claiming a sum of Rs.15 lac as compensation from the appellant. A reply was filed by the appellant on 8.7.2003 and according to the appellant, when the deceased was brought to his clinic on 14.4.2003 at about 7.30 p. m. apart from having temperature of 100 degree, deceased was suffering from Gastroenteritis and Pyrexia and there was also drug reaction and these symptoms were mentioned by him in the treating slip marked as Annexure R/1 and, therefore, to say that deceased was patient of simple fever is not correct one and earlier, deceased was treated by doctor, who used to take Rs.5 from the patient and because of his treatment, the condition of deceased was not good one. It was further submitted by the appellant that when the deceased was brought to his clinic on 14.4.2003, it was found that the deceased was suffering from Gastroenteritis and Pyrexia and there was also drug reaction in the body of the deceased and to meet out above diseases, he gave anti allergic, anti vomiting and anti diarrhea drugs, which were known as life saving drugs and thus, by injecting two injections in the body of the deceased, the appellant had committed no mistake. It was further submitted by the appellant that the attendant, who had brought the deceased, to his clinic had also told him that doctor, who used to take Rs.5 had given tablet of quinine to the deceased and because of that, there was reaction in the body of the deceased and to meet out that situation, he injected two injections in the body of the deceased. So far as the fact that the appellant had a telephonic talk with the person sitting in the medical store is concerned, it has been admitted by the appellant and upon that, he had stated that he advised the complainant-respondent that deceased should be brought to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur, but deceased was not brought to SMS Hospital by the complainant-respondent and when deceased was brought to SMS Hospital on the next day, the condition of deceased had already deteriorated. Therefore, there was no medical negligence on the part of appellant. It was further submitted by the appellant that as per post mortem report, the deceased died because of cardiac arrest, which had occasioned as a result of reaction of tablet of quinine. Hence, there was no medical negligence on the part of the appellant and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur through impugned order dated 29.10.2004 partially allowed the complaint of the complainant-respondent in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia: (i) That the fact that on 14.4.2003 at about 7.30 p. m. , deceased was treated by the appellant is not in dispute. (ii) That the fact that at that time, the appellant injected two injections in the body of the deceased is also not in dispute. (iii) That at the time of treatment what type of drugs were given by the appellant to the deceased, this fact was only known to the appellant as the prescription slip marked Annexure R/1 was not given to the attendant of the deceased. (iv) That when the appellant was aware of the fact that deceased was suffering from drug reaction and he gave life saving drugst to the deceased, in such a situation, the appellant should have referred the deceased to big hospital instead of sending deceased to his house and the act of the appellant sending the deceased to his house was not proper one. (v) That the fact that after telephonic talk at the medical store, deceased was given two tablets, as per directions of the appellant, is well established, but the appellant should have not done so and in such a case, he should have asked the concerned person that deceased should be brought to the big hospital. (vi) That the fact that the deceased was treated by the appellant is well established and the fact that the appellant did not give any advice that deceased should be brought to SMS hospital is also well established. (vii) That no doubt deceased had not died because of the wrong treatment given by the appellant, but the manner in which the deceased was treated by the appellant was nothing, but amounts to deficiency in service on his part in treating the deceased. Aggrieved from the said order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.