ASHU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of the order dated 6.7.1998 passed by Distt. Forum, Nagpur. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the original complainant in C.C. No. 519/95 has filed Appeal No. 1560/98, original O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have filed Appeal No. 2499/98 and the original O.P. No. 3 has filed Appeal No. 1571/98.

(2.) So far as above observation of the Forum is concerned, a reference can be made to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Savita Garg v. The Director, National Heart Institute, 2004 4 CPJ 40. The consumer complaint of medical negligence was dismissed by National Commission holding it not maintainable for the absence of treating doctors being not impleaded as a party. The question arose before Hon ble Supreme Court was, whether non-impleading the treating doctor as party be a ground for the dismissal of the complaint The Supreme Court recorded negative finding and observed that it is very difficult for the patient or his relatives to give any details as to which doctor treated him and whether that doctor was negligent or the nursing staff was negligent. It would be too much of a burden on the patient or his family members. It is not proper to place any such burden on them. The responsibility of the Hospital/Institute is to provide the patient with best service. After claimant successfully discharged the initial burden, the Hospital was negligent and as a result of such negligence, the patient died, thereafter, the burden lied on the Hospital and the doctor who treated the patient. Summary dismissal of the complaint by National Commission on the question of non-joinder, in the circumstances held to be not proper. The burden was on the Institute. It was its duty to specify that there was no lack of care of diligence. Institute, therefore, not to be absolved of its responsibility because a particular doctor was not impleaded." Hon ble Supreme Court set-aside the order passed by the National Commission and remitted the complaint for decision afresh in accordance with the law.

(3.) Relying on the ratio in the judgment referred supra, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order passed by the Forum below and propose to remit the complaint back to the Forum for decision afresh. ORDER