RANJIT SINGH BUTTAR Vs. SEWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order two appeals (Nos.342 and 370 of 1998) are being disposed of arising out of the same order of District Forum, Amritsar dated March 19, 1998. Appeal No.370 of 1998 has been filed by the complainant Sewa Singh as his complaint filed against the opposite party, Dr. Ranjit Singh Buttar, was dismissed whereas the other Appeal No.342 of 1998 has been filed by Dr. Buttar for quashing of observations of the District Forum regarding his conduct, in the matter of treating private patients at private nursing home on charging fees while in Government service. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

(2.) The complainant's case is in two phases. First phase related to the treatment given to his son Kulbir Singh, aged about 11 months for diarrhea from October 6, 1997 to October 9, 1997 and in the second phase he gave treatment on November 23, 1997 at about 9.30 p. m. whereas the child died during the night. On October 6, 1997 at about 11 a. m. Kulbir Singh was brought to the Primary Health Centre, Verka where Dr. Ranjit Singh Buttar was working as Medical Officer (in Government service ). After examining Kulbir Singh and prescribing certain medicines while issuing a prescription slip he advised admission of the patient to his Nursing Home known as Ranbir Nursing Home. It was accordingly done. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was charged by Dr. Buttar from the complainant in providing treatment. Since there was some relief to the patient that he was discharged on October 9, 1997. Subsequently on November 23, 1997 there was an acute problem with the child who was again brought to the opposite party and likewise the child was again admitted in the Nursing Home aforesaid and was charged Rs.300/- as room rent. Some treatment was given. When the condition was deteriorating a call was given to the doctor, but he did not come. On the telephone instructions were given to continue with I. V. fluids. The child died as stated above. Thus alleging negligence on the part of Dr. Buttar in the matter of giving treatment ultimately resulting in the death of the child, Sewa Singh approached the District Forum with the complaint claiming compensation. The opposite party Dr. Buttar submitted his version primarily admitting that Kulbir Singh was brought to the Primary Health Centre and he had examined him and given the treatment. All other allegations of examining and giving treatment to the child by him were denied. He had no connection with Ranbir Nursing Home, which was owned by Raghbir Singh and Chanan Singh. Dr. Buttar is son-in-law of Raghbir Singh. Both the owners of the Nursing Home are not the doctors. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum on perusal of the evidence came to the conclusion that no negligence on the part of Dr. Buttar was established either in the matter of making diagnosis or giving treatment. Further, the complainant had failed to establish that the death was on account of negligent act of the opposite party. Thus the complaint was dismissed. However, observations were made against the conduct of Dr. Ranjit Singh Buttar, opposite party, who being in Government service was doing private practice. It was further observed that he was required to be thrown out at a distance from service for the public good so that killing of patient may not continue in future.

(3.) We have heard Counsel for the parties. Alongwith Appeal No.370 of 1998 filed by the complainant, an application for condoning delay in filing the same was filed supported by affidavit of the complainant. It is mentioned therein that the certified copy of the impugned order showed the date of delivery as March 30, 1998 and the limitation for filing appeal expired on May 1, 1998, which happened to be a holiday. Thus after the holidays appeal was filed on May 4, 1998. In this manner 4 days' delay in filing the appeal was sought to be condoned. We have verified that there were public holidays on 1st, 2nd and 3rd May, 1998. However, we are of the opinion that the limitation of filing appeal expired on April 30, 1998, which was the last date for filing the appeal. Affidavit of the complainant Sewa Singh was got attested from Oath Commissioner, Chandigarh on April 27, 1998. On that day if appeal had been filed it had been well within the time of limitation. The appeal papers purport to have been prepared on April 29, 1998, but factually after the holidays the appeal was filed on May 4, 1998. The delay of one day in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned as fault appears to be of the Counsel for the appellant in not filing the appeal either on April 29, 1998 or April, 30, 1998 and the litigant should not suffer for the negligent act of his Counsel. Hence delay is condoned.