VIDYA DEVI Vs. R MEHINDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 14. 2. 2003 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'state Commission') vide which the State Commission has allowed the appeal of respondent/opposite party and dismissed the complaint facts of the case are that-

(2.) SHRI Sham Bir, aged about 53 years was taken by his family members for treatment to the Nursing Home of Dr. R. Mehindru who diagnosed it to be a case of Chronic Bronchitis with emphysema with carpulmorale with CO2 Narcosis and was admitted in the Nursing Home on 18. 11. 1992. However, but for a brief period when oxygen was administered, the condition of Sham Bir continued to deteriorate. Request of the family members to either call a better specialist or refer the patient to a hospital did not elicit ready response from Dr. Mehindru, forcing them to insist that the patient be referred to a hospital since he had gone into coma. It was only on their insistence that respondent/op referred the patient to Holy Family Hospital on 21. 11. 1992. Holy Family Hospital diagnosed it to be a case of celebral Malaria and tried their best to save his life. The patient, however, expired on 23. 11. 1992 due to Cardio Pulmonary Arrest due to Acute Anterior-Septal Ml cardial infection commonly known as heart attack. Alleging medical negligence, in particular wrong diagnosis and inordinate delay for referral on part of respondent/op (Dr. Mehindru), widow of the deceased in her own capacity and also as the natural guardian of two minor daughters along with Satinder and Satish two sons of the deceased filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad seeking a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh. On contest by the respondent OP (Dr. Mehindru) the matter was adjudicated upon by the District Forum on the basis of evidence before them including oral evidence and cross-examination of the complainant. The District Forum by a majority of 2:1 returned the finding that the OP doctor was negligent and deficient in service and allowed the complaint. The minority order delivered by the President of the District Forum, however, held that the complainant failed to prove any payment to the OP for his services and further held that the diagnosis was correct and absolved the OP doctor of any liability on account of any medical negligence and carelessness and dismissed the complaint.

(3.) AGGRIEVED upon the order of the two-member majority order of District Forum holding him liable for medical negligence and deficient in providing service, the respondent OP filed Appeal No. 198 of 1999 before the State Commission. During the pendency of the appeal, the widow of the deceased expired leaving her two sons and two daughters, who are before us now to pursue the matter. The State Commission, as already stated, allowed the appeal of OP for lack of evidence and dismissed the complaint, which is under challenge in this Revision Petition