LAWS(NCD)-2008-9-51

PATRIC Vs. DIDAR SINGH GILL

Decided On September 10, 2008
Patric Appellant
V/S
Didar Singh Gill Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2002 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short 'the State Commission') in appeal No. 502/2000 against the order dated 19.1.2000 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short 'District Forum') in Complaint No. 142 -DF -99. Both the consumer Fora have held allegation of medical negligence 'not proved' and, therefore, dismissed the complaint.

(2.) ON being approached for treatment of high fever, the opposite party allegedly administered an injection which resulted in an abscess. It was alleged that an unsterilized injection needle was used. The complainant, therefore, had to approach other doctors and hospital for his treatment thereby incurring an expenditure of Rs. 10,000. It was also alleged that the opposite party was a quack and not a registered medical practitioner.

(3.) ON notice, the complaint was resisted by opposite party. Parties on being called upon to lead their respective evidence led evidence. The District Forum on consideration and after hearing the Counsel, came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to establish any case of medical negligence. The District Forum was of the view that to prove medical negligence onus rested heavily on the complainant but he has failed to produce any document/medical slip of the opposite party -doctor with regard to administering of injection. He has not even been able to pin point the exact date when he approached the opposite party. The District Forum also disbelieved the plea of the complainant that the abscess was formed within 24 hrs. of the administration of the injection as there ought to have been some incubation period. It has also been observed in the order of the District Forum that the complainant had approached the Police and Govt. Medical Authorities and also filed a Civil Suit in the matter and dismissed the complaint. The State Commission in similar vein affirmed the order of the District Forum.