ASHOK DHAWAN Vs. SURJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana dated 28th June, 1996 by which the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner herein, was dismissed. The facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the complainant (respondent herein) filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal against Dr. Ashok Dhawan -the opposite party on the ground that Dr. Dhawan was running a medical clinic at Karnal and that on 25th May, 1992 he gave an injection on the right arm of the complainant without proper test after which his arm stopped moving and he was unable to make use of the arm. The complainant consulted the opposite party with the complaint that his right arm was not moving at all. The opposite party advised the complainant for massage of vicks or balm but the complainant got no relief. Thereafter the complainant consulted a number of doctors and is stated to have spent a huge amount of Rs. 97,000/ -. With these allegations, he preferred a complaint before the District Forum for award of compensation on the ground of negligence of the doctor.

(2.) THE opposite party denied having provided any service to the complainant on the ground that no patient by the name of Surjeet Singh i.e., the complainant ever came to him and he never prescribed any injection to the complainant. A plea was also taken that the Forum had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the Order of the District Forum, the complainant as well as the opposite party filed appeals before the State Commission which were dismissed by the impugned order. The State Commission affirmed the finding of the District Forum on the question of negligence of the doctor. Regarding compensation, it was observed by the State Commission that no proof of having spent the amount was produced before the District Forum except complainant's bald assertion and the District Forum was right in awarding Rs. 10,000/ - on account of amount spent on treatment as well as harassment caused to the complainant.