A.LATHA vs Sekar

THE complainant in COP No. 32/96 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvannamalai, is the appellant herein. Her case was as follows : On 25.9.1993 at 11 a.m. she got treated for her headache by the opposite party, a practising Homoeopathy Doctor at THEllar and in the presence of her father. During the treatment, the opposite party took a syringe and needle which were kept on the table, filled the syringe with Tetramycin and injected on her left hand. He also gave some tablets after getting a fee of Rs. 9. Within an hour she felt that she could not lift her hand, she developed intolerable pain and on the same day evening she came again to the opposite party complaining of pain; the opposite party told her that the pain would subside in due course. Believing that, she bore it. But the pain did not subside. She went again to the opposite party. THEre was no relief even then. THErefore, she went to Dr. Basheer Ahmed who referred her to Dr. Nandha Kumar and Dr. S.S.K. Ayyar. She suffered mental torture and agony due to the negligence of the opposite party in administering injection. THE complaint came to be filed claiming a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation, damages, medical and travel expenses, etc.

THE opposite party filed a counter stating that he did not treat the complainant on 25.9.1993 nor did he give any injection to her on that day. He did not know who the complainant was and that she did not approach him at any point of time. He was ignorant about the alleged ailment. He being a Homoeopathy practitioner, he did not give injection to any of his patients. Only to harass him due to professional rivarly the complaint had been filed. Exs. A-1 to A-11 were marked on the side of the complainant. No documents were marked by the opposite party.

The District Forum held that though the complainant had filed as many as 11 documents on her side, none of them would prove that she had taken treatment under the opposite party and had paid Rs. 9 for the treatment given by him to her and in the absence of any material evidence, it could not be held that the complainant had hired the services of the opposite party. So holding, by order dated 8.12.1998, the District Forum dismissed the complaint without costs.

BEFORE us, the complainant has taken out an application for reception of the prescription alleged to have been given by the opposite party on 25.9.1993 as an additional document and marking it as an exhibit on her side. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for reception of the prescription as an additional evidence, it is stated that the complainant had given the relevant documents to her Counsel who conducted the case before the District Forum, Tiruvallur; inadvertently the said Counsel had not filed it in Court, that she was able to ascertain the same only after receiving the order copy from the District Forum, that all the relevant documents were filed in the year 1999 itself before this Commission and a copy of the same was also served on the Counsel for the respondent; when the appeal was taken for final inquiry the Counsel for the complainant/appellant referred to the additional document filed before this Commission and on perusing the same, this Commission directed the respondent/opposite party to be present before the Commission; the respondent who appeared before the Commission denied the execution of the document and stated that he had given any treatment to the complainant; and, therefore, the present application came to be filed and that she may be permitted to file the prescription as an additional document. The appellant/complainant also prayed to send the prescription to a Hand Writing Expert for comparison with the admitted writing of the opposite party. Though an application has been taken out for sending the document to Hand Writing Expert, since it is only a hand writing, we feel that it would not be necessary to send the prescription to an expert. Not only that, the complainant is so poor she is not in a position to meet the expenses. The opposite party also is not willing to meet the expenses half way. When questioned, the opposite party flatly stated that the writing in the prescription is not his. In the interest of justice and proper adjudication of the complaint, we receive the document as additional evidence. We made our own comparison of the writing and signature found in the additional document (marked as Ex. A-12) with the admitted signature of the opposite party found in the version and in the Vakalat filed in the appeal. We have least doubt that the writing in the additional document is clearly that of the opposite party. He had lied before the District Forum that he did not know the complainant from Adam and that she never took treatment under him. Nothing could be farther from truth. He had lied through his teeth. In view of our above finding, it is clear that the opposite party had given Tetramycin injection though he was not competent to administer Allopathic treatment. In Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel & Anr., II (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 2211, it has been held by the Supreme Court that a person registered only as a medical practitioner of Homeopathy was under a statutory duty not to practise any other system of medicine. In the present case, we have the least doubt that the complainant had been treated by the opposite party by administering Tetramycin injection which resulted in the complainant developing complications leading to her taking further corrective measures under regular allopathic practitioners at Chennai and elsewhere. We are of the view that the complainant is entitled to be paid compensation which we fix at Rs. 25,000 payable by the opposite party. She is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,500 towards costs both in the appeal and before the District Forum.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the complaint shall stand allowed on the above terms. Appeal allowed.