BHIM SINGH Vs. PREM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 14.6.2001 passed by District Forum, Panipat in Complaint Case No. 490 of 2000, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant -complainant against the opposite parties was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts as focussed in the complaint briefly stated are that the complainant had married daughter of Suraj Mal about 3 years ago and thereafter he has been living happily with his wife. However, his father -in -law wanted to re -marriage his daughter and was bent upon breaking his marriage. The complainant was working with Banti Thekedar. A dispute took place between him and Thekedar over the amount due to him. He claimed that a sum of Rs. 15,000 was due to the Thekedar and the Thekedar had maintained that he was only to pay Rs. 13,000 to him. The Thekedar threatened to teach a lesson to him on 20.3.1999. On 26.3.1999 Banti Thekedar, in the company of a person on a false pretext, took the complainant on his motor -cycle to his house where he was beaten mercilessly which resulted in fracture of his legs. He was also burnt with acid and thereafter he was thrown on a railway line in an unconscious condition so as to devise the story of a railway accident. The Railway Police took him to the Civil Hospital, Panipat and got registered a case against Banti bearing FIR No. 60 dated 2.4.1999 under Sections 323/324 read with Sections 34 of the IPC and Section 145 of the Railway Act. The complainant was referred to PGI but was taken to Prem Hospital, Panipat owned by Dr. Prem Kumar -opposite party No. 1. Both Banti and his father -in -law reached the spot and threatened to compromise the matter after receiving Rs. 40,000 from them and if he did not agree to do so, he would repent throughout his life. The complainant declined the offer made. They gratified Dr. Prem Kumar and persuaded him to amputate his both legs though by providing necessary medical treatment amputation could have been avoided by him. The complainant has to spend Rs. two lacs on his treatment. Threafter his father -in -law took his daughter with him in order to remarry her with a rich person. In this manner he had been deceived and rendered invalid in life. In these allegations he invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum claiming compensation amount of Rs. five lacs against the opposite party.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the complaint, Oriental Insurance Company was impleaded as opposite party No. 2. It contested the complaint on the plea that the complaint is based on criminal conspiracy and for that reason a professional indemnity cannot be invoked under the circumstances of the case. It further pleaded that both the legs of the complainant have been amputated as it had developed gangrene and in order to save his life and on that basis it maintained that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1. In rejoinder, the complainant reiterated his earlier pleas. On scrutiny of the evidence and pleading of the parties, the District Forum found no substance in the complaint and dismissed the same as per order dated 14.6.2001. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.