KALU RAM Vs. KANA RAM COMPOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that his wife Smt. Barji, aged 27 years was carrying 7 months pregnancy. On 8th November, 1995, the complainant took her wife to the respondent Kana Ram at his Clinic situated at Palsana. Kana Ram advised abortion. Believing Kana Ram that he could perform abortion, he paid Rs. 250/- towards fee. Kana Ram performed abortion and nearly over 1 kg. of parts of the intestine, etc. were taken out negligently. At about 7 p.m., Kalu Ram took his wife to the residence as advised by Kana Ram. Her condition started deteriorating. On 15th November, 1995, Kalu Ram again took his wife to Kana Ram who informed the complainant that further cleaning was required to clear her womb. He charged Rs. 180/- again. Kana Ram again undertook cleaning and some more parts of intestine were taken out. Kana Ram advised Kalu Ram to again bring his wife the next day i.e. on 16th November, 1995 for administering injection. Kalu Ram again took her wife to Kana Ram. Kana Ram administered injection to his wife but she died all of a sudden at the Clinic of Kana Ram. Kana Ram advised Kalu Ram to take her wife to his residence immediately and asked Kalu Ram not to disclose these facts to anybody. After performing last rites, however, Kalu Ram lodged report with the police. Kana Ram had got neither any experience of doing abortion nor was authorised to do so. Ultimately, the complainant/petitioner filed complaint, claiming compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakh.

(3.) The respondent Kana Ram in his written version denied the allegations and claimed that he was not at all running a private clinic at Palsana though he was a Compounder at Government Health Centre, Palsana. According to the written version of Kana Ram, this address was given for the purpose of name and address and there is no specific denial about running of private clinic for he mentioned in response to para 2 of the complaint that it did not require any further reply. The respondent further denied that he performed operation or on account of his negligence, the death of the wife of the complainant took place.