INDERJEET Vs. RAJ BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner/complainant is that his daughter, late Renu, aged about 2 1/2 years at the relevant time suffered from cough, cold and fever and was taken to the respondent for treatment. The respondent gave two doses of medicine to the child. Since her condition deteriorated, she was again taken to the respondent who administered an injection to the child and again gave two doses of medicine to her. However, the condition of the child deteriorated further and she expired on the same day. She was taken to LNJP Hospital where she was declared dead. An FIR at the concerned Police Station was lodged under Section 304A of IPC on the same day. A Post Mortem on the dead body of the child was conducted on 27.2.2011. The Post Mortem report which is available on page 137 of the paper-book, would show that injection mark was found on her body. The Viscera of the child was preserved and sent to the laboratory for chemical examination. The chemical examination of Viscera confirmed that Gentamycin injection had been administered to the child and that she being hyper sensitive to Gentamycin, had died on account of the said reaction.

(2.) The complainant/petitioner who is the father of the child approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.9 lakhs alongwith damages.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the respondent who in his written version flatly denied having given any medicine to the child. He categorically stated in the written version filed by him that neither the complainant nor his wife or any family member had ever visited his clinic nor had he given any medicine to the complainant or any of his family member including the deceased child, namely, Renu. He also alleged that the claim had been filed with a view to extort money from him, he being a worker of Bahujan Samaj Party.