K B KAPOOR Vs. PHOOL DEV PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by one Dr. Kapoor of Gurgaon, order dated 24th May, 1995 passed by District Forum, Gurgaon has been challenged on the ground that the complaint against Dr. Kapoor for deficiency in service in applying bandage to the thumb of the complainant etc. has been illegally allowed and compensation of Rs.55/- along with costs of Rs.250/- have been wrongly awarded.

(2.) According to the complainant, who is a poor labourer in a factory, he sustained some minor injury to his thumb on 19th January, 1995 for which he approached the appellant Dr. Kapoor in his hospital. The Doctor administered one injection of tetanus, applied bandage and also prescribed some tablets by charging Rs.70/- for this treatment. Feeling the bill excessive, the labourer approached the District Forum for the refund of the amount. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion, that for simple bandage on the thumb and one injection of tetanus, bill of Rs.70/- was excessive. Consequently, the complaint has been allowed with a direction to the Doctor to refund Rs.55/- and to pay Rs.250/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

(3.) In appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that since the appellant was a qualified Doctor, the total amount of Rs.70/- charged by him included the check-up of the patient, consultation, cost of the tetanus injection, its administering charges, cost of the bandage and fee for its applying and prescribing the tablets etc. , was reasonable. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and having gone through the record, even though we fully agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, but we do not want to summon the respondent labourer in appeal as it would cause unnecssary financial burden and inconvenience for him to come all the way from Gurgaon to Chandigarh and to engage Counsel etc. especially when the amount involved is too meagre. Therefore, we hold that it is for the Doctor-a Medical Practitioner to fix his fee for various services and the patient has no legal right to determine as to whether the fee charged is reasonable or exorbitant, as the amount of fee charged by a Medical Practitioner depends on number of factors i. e. , his technical qualification, experience in the profession and the nature and quality of services rendered by him. So there can not be a hard and fast yard-stick, as it differs from a Doctor to Doctor. Therefore, in the present case, there being no evidence of deficiency in service or any negligence attributed to the appellant, the order passed by the learned District Forum can not be upheld and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. However as already mentioned, the amount involved being too meagre, we are not summoning the complainant-labourer for defending the appeal, which is disposed of with the direction, that if the amount has already been paid by the appellant to the complainant in compliance with the order of the District Forum, the same shall not be claimed back. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of/complaint dismissed.