Jallauddin Khan (Dr.) vs Indra Sen Verma

THIS is a case of a person who is not qualified and not authorized to practise allopathy, gave injections to the piles of the patient, resulting in severe complications and subsequent treatment at three different hospitals causing severe pain, suffering mental and physical agony and financial loss to the complainant.

DR . Jallauddin Khan, petitioner before us was the respondent before the District Forum and Indra Sen Verma, respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. The case of the complainant in short is that he was suffering from piles for quite some time. He went to consult Dr. Jallauddin Khan on 1.3.2003, who is a practitioner of electro homeopathy. Dr. Khan agreed to treat him on payment of Rs. 3,000. He then gave a injection in his anus at 12 noon and another injection at 5 p.m. in the evening. From the next day, he had acute pain for which doctor gave another injection. By 3.3.2003 the condition of the complainant deteriorated and the area around his anus became inflammed and he could not even pass urine. Therefore, Dr. Khan advised him to consult someone else. He was taken to Jabalpur and admitted at Mannulal Hospital, where it was found that due to wrong injection, he had developed infection and sepsis. He was later on shifted to Jeevan Hospital and finally to Hindustan Hospital on 5.3.2003, where the pus was taken out and treatment given. Ultimately he was discharged on 22.3.2003. When he went back to his village, he complained to the Collector and also lodged an FIR and a criminal case was also registered against the doctor.

THE complaint was contested by Dr. Khan stating that he is a practitioner of electro homeopathy and complaint has been filed only to malign him. He submits that he does not give any injection and denies any prescription or treating the patient at all. The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 30.8.2007. The State Commission went through the documents once again and held that there was medical negligence on the part of Dr. Khan and accordingly the appeal was allowed. Dr. Khan, the petitioner directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of order till payment along with Rs. 1,000 as cost.

DISSATISFI ED by the order of the State Commission, Dr. Khan has filed this Revision Petition before us. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to the treatment of Dr. Jallauddin Khan the patient was treated at the Government Hospital by Dr. Purohit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the patient was never treated by Dr. Jallauddin Khan and there is no prescription slip of Dr. Khan or the receipt of the amount paid to Dr. Khan by the complainant has been produced by the complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in so far as the medical negligence matters are concerned, it is necessary to have the documents of medical treatment by the doctor should be produced by the complainant without which one cannot come to any conclusion that the doctor was negligent. He further submitted that Seth Mannula Jagannath Hospital, Jabalpur has recorded only complication of the piles and its discharge sticker only mentions about the injection given by Dr. Khan but does not say whether correctly or wrongly. Though discharge summary report of Seth Mannulal Jagannath Hospital and Hindustan Hospital, Jabalpur are not disputed, the complainant has not produced the treatment records of Dr. Khan with his signature of the doctor having prescribed the injection.

IT is not in dispute that the complainant was taken to Seth Mannulal Jagannathdas Hospital and Research Centre at Jabalpur wherein they diagnosed the ease as "perineal infection septicaemia". Important clinical notes read as under: "On Admission: complaint of not passing urine since yesterday. History of some injection for piles given at Piparia by Dr. Khan. Patient toxic febrile etc."

HE was finally taken to Hindustan Hospital and Heart Institute on 5.3.2003 where his case was diagnosed as "E. Coli abscess scrotal and abdominal wall abscess". He was admitted with septicaemic shock plus abscess , History of : "injection therapy for haemorrhoids at village".

THE records produced before us clearly indicate that Dr. Khan had treated the patient. It is a common practice adopted by the doctors who are not qualified to treat the patients but provide Allopathic treatment, do not give any prescription. In fact some homeopathic medicines are sent by post. We can see non -allopathic practitioners displaying boards stating that they are specialists in treating diseases like piles and fistula.

THE Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel and Ors., II (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 2111, observed that in the instant case Pramod Verma was treated under the allopathic system of medicine by Dr. Ashwin Patel registered as a medical practitioner with the Gujarat Homeopathic Medical Council. Mr. Verma, who complained of fever, was treated by Dr. Ashwini Patel who kept him on allopathic treatment from 4.7.1992 to 6.7.1992 and, thereafter, also treated Verma for typhoid fever. The doctor put him on intravenous glucose (dextrose) drip without ascertaining the level of blood sugar by conducting a simple blood test, which resulted steady deterioration in Verma''s condition. Subsequently, he was shifted to different hospitals but that was of no use.

HON ''ble Apex Court held that for this negligence, the National Commission observed that it is a sad story had its beginning in the hands of a quack doctor who practises allopathy without being qualified in this discipline. For this negligence, the Commission directed Dr. Ashwini Patel to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 to the family and finally the Hon''ble Apex Court affirmed the order of this Commission and imposed further cost of Rs. 30,000. Hon''ble Supreme Court held that non -qualified persons practising allopathic medicines amounts to actionable negligence.

THE ratio of the above cited case is totally applicable to the case on hand. Further, we do not consider that the amount awarded by the State Commission is either exorbitant or arbitrary. Therefore, this Revision Petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. However, there shall be no order as to cost.