DILIP NARAYAN BHELANDE vs PRAKASH N. PANT

- THIS complaint is mainly against Dr. Prakash Pant on the allegations that he rendered negligent service as a Medical Practitioner to complainant as a result of which complainant suffered permanent physical injury and thus claimed compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- from opposite parties.

THE complainant alleged that he works as electrician and earns Rs. 50/- as daily wages. He alleged that as he was ill on 4th July 1989, he approached Dr. Prakash Pant at his dispensary at Amravati. Dr. Prakash treated complainant and gave an injection to his left hand as a result of which he collapsed on ground. THEreafter, complainant was removed to his house and thereafter he was treated as an indoor patient in local Government Hospital for 1 Months period. Later on complainant had to consult many specialists for the cure of his hand which could not work properly. According to complainant, Dr. Prakash Pant is a Homoeopath and as such is not permitted to administer injection and as a Government servant in Milk Scheme is not entitled to practise. But his superior officers opposite parties 2 to 4 were negligent is not preventing him to practise medicine despite the fact that he was a Government employee. THE complainant therefore claimed compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- jointly from all the opposite party. Notice under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (For short the Act) was sent to opposite parties. Dr. Prakash Pant and others filed their reply denying the allegations in complaint. Hence we treated the case as a consumer dispute and proceeded to decide it. We recorded the evidence of complainant. Both parties filed documents and advanced oral argument. Dr. Prakash Pant admitted in his reply that he is in Government service as a Milk Procurement Supervisor and at the material time were residing in the same locality viz. Khaparde Garden. But he denied that he was practising as a homeopath in medicine. He also denied that he treated the complainant and gave him injection alleged by complainant. The opposite parties 2 to 4 admitted that Dr. Prakash Pant has been in Government service in the Milk Scheme. But denied his involvement in medicine practice. Opposite party No. 5 stated that they would initiate action against Dr. Prakash Pant if he is found to have committed breach of their rules.

We do not agree as regards the denial of Dr. Prakash Pant that he is not practising any medical job. Opposite party No. 5 the Board of Homeopathic and Biochemic, Bombay, placed before us a document dated 28.5.1990 showing that Prakash Pant is a registered Homeopathic Practitioner having registration No. 8004 dated 24.3.1981. This has been confirmed from the registration record. Moreover the complainant has already mentioned the same registration No. 8004 in para 6 of his complaint. Complainant has also placed on record a certificate issued to one Shri P.D. Ramteke on 8.8.1989 by Dr. Prakash Pant showing his signature and Registration No. 8004. A photocopy of the door is filed in which it is clearly seen that there is "Renuka Clinic" run by Dr. Prakash Pant. This voluminous prima facie documentry evidence clearly establish the fact that Dr. Prakash Pant is practising in Medicine at Amravati and also issued a certificate dated 8.8.89. It is important to note that despite all this documentary evidence on record Dr. Prakash Pant did not deny it on oath by examining himself as a witness or in an affidavit. Thus we hold that Dr. Prakash Pant has been practising Medicine at Amaravati under Registration No. 8004.

WE now come to the most important issue as to whether Dr. Prakash Pant treated complainant on 4.7.1989 and gave him injection as a result of which he suffered physical injury and hence entitled for compensation claimed in this complaint. Dr. Prakash Pant denied it in his reply. The burden is on complainant to establish it as a fact. WE find that besides the oral testimony of complainant there is no other convicting evidence to establish the fact that Dr. Prakash Pant treated complainant and administered him any injection. The complainant however has tried to establish on the basis of a prescription C-Z issued by Dr. Prakash Pant. This document does not bear any date or stamp indicating the identity of a person issuing it. Moreover it does not indicate that it has been issued in relation to complainant. Thus C.-2 can not connect Dr. Prakash Pant. The complainant also filed affidavit of Dilip Karaykar. Sunil Virulkar, Satish Jaiswal and Dilip Raut who have stated that Dr. Prakash Pant gave injection to complainant. But it is difficult to believe that all these persons were actually present when the injunction was administered. Under these circumstances, we are not fully convinced that Dr. Prakash Pant gave injection to the complainant Even assuming for the sake of argument that an injection was given by Dr. Prakash Pant to complainant, then there is no mention of the name of the medicine injected. There is also nonexus established by any further evidence that the complainant suffered the injury to his left hand as a result of injecting a particular medicine or whether complainant suffered due to other reasons besides the injection. Complainant fell short of evidence on the point that the sufference he received was the direct result of the injection. There can be several other reasons for the suffering of complainant to his left hand. WE can not therefore attribute the negligence on the part of Dr. Prakash Pant in rendering defective service to the complainant. Further the payment of Rs. 10/- as fees to Dr. Prakash Pant by complainant is also not established. Hence we hold that Dr. Prakash Pant can not be held responsible for the loss or injury caused to complainant and consequently no compensation can be awarded to the complainant. We how ever find that complainant did suffer injury to his left hand and that he was hospitalised for 11/2 months and has to .consult various experts. We accept the evidence of complainant that he had to suffer long treatment as well as monetary loss. But unless it is established that it was due to the negligent act of Dr. Prakash Pant, he cannot be held liable for compensation.

AS regards the grievance of complainant that Dr. Prakash Pant was allowed by the Diary Department to practise medicine at Amravati, we find that there was no proper check on the attendence of Dr. Prakash Pant by the Dairy Department. Despite letter from authorities like Regional Milk Scheme Development Officer dated 30.12.1989 and another letter dated 5.2.1990 from the same authority the concerned officer failed to make proper inquires about the private profession being carried on by Dr. Prakash Pant at Amravati. On the contrary we find that the department seems to have connived at the activities of Dr. Prakash Pant. Under these circumstances we cannot take any action except to bring it to the notice of the Department. In the result we have no other alternative but to reject the complaint for grant of compensation. However, it is open to the complainant to seek relief before the appropriate authority if so advised. Complaint dismissed.