BALESHWAR PRASAD vs FIRTU DAS MAHANT

BALESHWAR Prasad and his brother Sidheshwar Prasad have challenged the judgment and order dated 24.1.2003 passed on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Dhanbad, whereby they have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainant who is the unfortunate father of diseased minor son aged 13 years, died due to laches and negligence on the part of the appellants while injecting the medicine in their clinic.

THE short facts giving rise to the disputes are that while the minor son of the complainant was coming from school at 3 p.m., he suddently complained of severe headache along with high fever. THE boy was taken to the dispensary of the complainants for treatment. THE appellant No. 2 who is the brother of appellant No. 1 performed his duties of a compounder, injected medicine. Finding no improvement, the boy was administered 2nd injection. Lastly he left the patient with advice to get the patient treated somewhere. Immediately the minor boy was brought to the Bhuli Central Hospital but the doctor declared the minor boy brought dead, at about 9 p.m. It is relevant to mention here that during the period of treatment by the appellant No. 2, the appellant No. 1 nowhere came in the picture. An F.I.R. was lodged which was registered at Dhanbad, Bhuli Bank More, PS Case No. 494/1998. Pursuant thereto the opposite party was arrested and sent to jail. Simultaneously the complainant approached the District Forum for compensation. On being noticed, the appellants appeared and filed their response. It is alleged on behalf of the appellant No. 1 that the allegations against him are totally false and fabricated inasmuch as he was totally absent from the dispensary at the relevant time. Similarly, the appellant No. 2 has denied the allegations made against him and alleged that his duty is to work under the direction of doctor. It is further alleged that the complainant has not produced any prescription of the doctor to show that he administered any injection and hence the allegations made against him are totally false and fabricated. It is further alleged that the examination report also does not support the allegation of the complainant that he administered any poison to the minor boy through injection. However, both the appellants have admitted that they are running a dispensary and performing the duties that of a doctor and compounder with the knowledge of the people of the locality. The District Forum after hearing the parties and going through the materials available on record has passed the order which is under challenge before us as stated above.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has reiterated the stand taken in their show-cause and submits that the complainant has neither produced any doctor''s prescription nor any medicine to show that the boy was given injection by the appellant No. 2.

IN opposition, however, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the allegations made against the appellants have been fully substantiated. It has further been submitted that none of the appellants possesses required qualification to treat the ailing persons even then they are running the dispensary in order to extract money from the illiterate people. IN the absence of the appellant No. 1 who is claiming to be a doctor, appellant No. 2 namely, the compounder should not have entertained the patient and injected the medicine. In the light of the rival contentions, we have considered the materials on record including the order under challenge. It has, nowhere, been denied that the ailing minor boy was not brought to the dispensary of the appellants at the relevant time. Admittedly, they do not possess any medical qualification either in Allopathy or in Homeopathy System of Medicine. In course of arguments, the appellant was present. We specifically asked the Counsel to show as to whether the appellants are qualified to act as a doctor and compounder respectively to treat the ailing persons either under Allopathy or Homeopathy System of Medicine but they frankly denied to have possessed any such qualification. It is however submitted that the appellant No. 1 is competent to treat the ailing persons since he is having a qualification of R.M.P. (Rural Medical Practitioner) in Allopathy System of Medicine. The appellant has himself disclosed that he is an Intermediate in Arts. In support of his contention, he has produced a photocopy of certificate issued by the Council of R.M.P., Bihar. The learned District Forum has doubted the genuineness and correctness of the certificate alleged to have been issued by the Authority of Council of R.M.P. Both the parties filed their affidavits in the Court below in support of their contentions, but the District Forum has rejected the affidavits filed by the opposite parties in the following terms : "So as per admissions of the above referred deponents it is held by this Forum that these deponents are first rate liars and partiset, and therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon. Since occurrence started from dispensary and concluded at Central Hospital."

The affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties/appellants wherein they have, at least, admitted the fact that the minor boy of the complainant died because of the negligence and carelessness of the wife of the complainant. On the one hand, the statement made in the affidavit to the effect that the boy has not been brought to the clinic of the appellant, at the same time, it is stated that the boy died because of the negligence and carelessness of the mother on the other hand. We fail to understand such contrary statements of the deponents and the District Forum has rightly rejected their statements. Further, it appears from the record that there has been no enmity between the complainant and the appellants and hence no motive can be alleged of having false implications. Learned District Forum on consideration of evidences on record, has recorded the findings as under : "The so-called dispensary is a death cell to endanger the lives of illiterate masses. Accordingly this Forum hold that these O.Ps. have by operating and installing dispensary at Bhuli washed like demons to do away with the lives of illiterate persons."

FROM the materials on record as well as the statements made by the appellants in the Court below, it can safely be held that the appellants are not, in any way, qualified and/or competent to run the dispensary and treat the illiterate poor masses. After having heard the parties and considered the materials available on record including the order impugned, we are not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). Before parting with the order, we direct the appellants to pay the awarded amount within three weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law and, in that event, the complainant will be entitled to the interest at the rate of 18% from the date of this order till the date of realisation apart from the remedy available to the complainant for recovery of the amount. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties and/or their respective Counsels forthwith for needful. Appeal dismissed.