GIAN CHAND AGGARWAL vs DARSHANA DEVI

IT is an appeal against the order dated 4.3.1999 of District Consumer Forum, Hoshiarpur, whereby the complaint of the complainant Darshana Devi was accepted and opposite party Dr. Gian Chand Aggarwal, was directed to pay Rs. 65,363/- by way of damages to the complainant within one month of receipt of copy of the order.

THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Darshana Devi felt pain in her left arm at about 4 p.m. on 4.12.1997 and she along with her son went to the clinic of the opposite party. She was examined by the opposite party and an injection on her left arm was administered by charging fee of Rs. 50/-. Instead of subsiding, the pain became more severe. She also felt burning sensation in her left arm. After some time, she felt numbness and loss of movement in the left arm, besides swelling. She became slightly unconscious. Her son approached the opposite party to point out her condition and then the opposite party administered her another injection and assured her that she will be all right within a day or so. THE opposite party issued a prescription slip also but she felt no relief, rather, her condition became more critical. On the next date, she went to E.S.I. Hospital, whose doctor referred her to Guru Nanak Dev Medical College at Amritsar where her left arm was scanned and it was found that there was clotting of blood in an artery and consequently gangrene had developed in her left index finger, middle finger and thumb. It was found by the doctor that the opposite party had administered the injection in an artery and, therefore, there was blood clotting resulting in gangrene. On 29.12.1997, she was referred to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar for operation. THE operation was conducted and her three fingers were amputated. She was kept under observation uptil 20.1.1998. THE allegation of the complainant was that she became handicapped because of the negligence of the opposite party who administered injection at wrong side. THE opposite party was not legally competent to prescribe Allopathic medicines and to give her any injection. She had to spend a sum of Rs. 22,700/- on her medical treatment and had to suffer inconvenience, harassment and frustration. Damages of Rs. 4 lacs were claimed in the complaint. On notice being serviced, opposite party appeared and took preliminary objections. On merits, it was denied that the complainant had visited his clinic or that he administered any injection on her left arm. The prescription slip was alleged to be a forged and fabricated document. The counter-version of the opposite party was that he was doing medical practice as a Registered Medical Practitioner at the village of the complainant for the last 40 years. Landlord of his clinic wanted him to vacate the premises. He had not agreed to that, therefore, the landlord got filed the complaint.

On the basis of evidence produced by the parties, impugned order was passed.

THE only question for consideration is as to whether the complainant was administered injection by the opposite party. On this point, the opposite party had completely denied having administered the injection. Before proceeding further in this case regarding the appreciation of the medical evidence produced in this case, it may be observed that the factum of amputation of her left thumb, index finger and middle finger of her left hand, has successfully been established by the complainant. THE complainant produced his own affidavit and affidavit of her son Satish Kumar about wrong administration of the injection by the opposite party. THE complainant was allowed to examine Dr. K.S. Sidhu, Head of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Guru Nanak Hospital, G.M.C., Amritsar and Dr. G.P.S. Bedi, Senior Medical Officer of E.S.I. Hospital, Hoshiarpur. Both these witnesses stated on oath that the complainant reported to them at the time of admission that the injection had been given on her left arm by local medical practitioner because of the pain she had suffered on 4.12.1997. Thus, the link evidence is also in the favour of the complainant. THE only statement made by the opposite party is that of the simple denial which is a bald statement. THE opposite party cannot wriggle out of its responsibility on the face of the prescription slip, Mark A, issued by him on 4.12.1997. THE perusal of the slip shows that it is on the pad of the opposite party whereon his name and other particulars have been printed, which also stands stamped with his name. It proves that some injection was given by the opposite party to the complainant. THErefore, it is held that opposite party was negligent in performing his duty towards the complainant and as a result of that the complainant has to be compensated. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum, which is hereby upheld. THE appeal of the appellant stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.