GAYATRI DEVI Vs. JAGDISH BANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B.K. Taimni, Member"Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where she had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondents.

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant had white patch on her right elbow for which she took treatment and it had started healing but after sometime had started ˜itching for which she went to one Dr. Chandilya in Jaipur. Since the treatment suggested by him was very expensive and they could not bear such an expense, in 1989 she went to the first respondent Dr. Jagdish Bandani and certain tests were carried out. After that the treatment was started by the first respondent but her condition worsened and her disease was diagnosed as Loopas Valgaries. After that she consulted second respondent Dr. U.S. Aggarwal. Several tests were carried out still her condition did not improve and on 18.5.1995 her hand had to be amputated by the second respondent. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondents, who after hearing the parties and perusal material on record dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation with cost of Rs. 5,000/ - because of alleged tampering of the relevant material by the Appellant/complainant. Aggrieved by this order this Appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) We heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. We have seen the certificate issued by Dr. V.K. Aggarwal on the point amputation of her left limb 3 1/2 inches above the elbow on 18.9.1994. We have seen this document ourselves and are satisfied that there is tempering with this document and the year 1994 has been improved to read 1995. This was done perhaps with a view to getting over the limitation part. It was the case of the Complainant that the amputation was done in 1995 and complaint was filed in 1997, but when an exception was taken by the Respondent/opposite party the State Commission went into the matter and Dr. V.K Aggarwal was examined by the State Commission wherein Dr. Aggarwal, the second respondent admitted that he issued the certificate marked ˜C -1 but the photograph has not been pasted on it by him. He also stated on oath before the State Commission that certificated purportedly said to be issued on 18 -9 -1995 was actually issued on 18 -9 -1994. Like this Certificate dated 18 -9 -1994(95), there is also a clear case of tempering with the document by the Appellant/Complainant and when we see the certificate of disability which shows that photograph has been imposed ˜on the signatures and the attestation has been covered by the photograph. In normal circumstances, the attestation should have come over the photograph. We have drawn the attention of the Ld. Counsel towards these anamolies and he has not been able to satisfy us as to why we should entertain this Appeal in view of the fact that the Complainant has made conscious efforts to temper with the evidence and did not approach the State Commission with clean hands.