MOHAMMAD SHAQOOR SHEIKH vs SUNITA KACHER

THIS appeal arises from the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna directing the appellant to pay Rs. 60,000 with 7% interest to the respondent as compensation, on the ground of medical negligence allegedly committed by him.

BRIEF facts according to the respondent-complainant are that he took his son, (hereinafter referred to as the patient), who was suffering from fever, to the appellant Mr. M.S. Seikh, who has a private clinic. He administered some medicines, gave an injection. He also prescribed some medicines. The respondent paid Rs. 90 for the treatment. Immediately after the treatment, the patient became unconscious. The appellant advised them to take him to Rewa. On the way to Rewa, the patient died. A police complaint was made and post-mortem was done. The respondent has alleged that his son died due to wrong medicines and injections given by the appellant. The appellant has denied that he runs any private clinic. He has also denied treating the patient after taking any consideration. He states that the patient already was weak and sickly. The respondent came to him with a prescription given by some doctor. The medicines written on it were illegible to the chemist. On the respondent''s request he rewrote the prescription clearly. He states that he is a retired compounder, and is qualified to give injections. However, he did not give any treatment to the patient and told the respondent to take him to Rewa. He has alleged that the complaint has been filed on the instigation of some vested interests.

The District Forum held the appellant negligent stating that there was sufficient evidence to show that he wrote the prescription, and it was a case of negligence per se.

WE have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel of both the parties and perused the documents on record. WE find ourselves in agreement with the finding of the District Forum that the prescription given to the patient was written by the appellant. It has also been signed by the appellant. His explanation that he only rewrote the medicines prescribed by some other doctor, because they were illegible, is far fetched. Further, he has not clarified who the doctor was. It is very evident that the appellant himself prescribed the medicines. As he was only a compounder, with no medical degree, he had no business to do so. The respondent has also alleged that before prescribing the medicines, the appellant gave the patient some injection. In our view, the allegation has substance in it. The post-mortem report clearly mentions that the ''skin injection site has been preserved for analysis. There is no doubt that the patient received an injection before his death. Regarding the cause of death, the doctor conducting the post-mortem has opined that the death was due to ''disease process''. He further writes-''However final opinion after viscera examination''. There is also no mention of what disease he suspects caused the patient''s death. A perusal of the report will show that all organs of his body were healthy. The report is inconclusive and the final opinion could have been given only if the viscera was analysed. However, there is no report of any viscera analysis. The cause of death thus remains a mystery. We do not know why no analysis of the injection site or viscera was done.

IN her cross-examination before the Sessions Judge, the respondent stated that after returning from the appellant''s clinic, the patient had diarrhoea and became unconscious. INnumerable websites on the internet give the information that diarrhoea is a symptom of anaphylactic/allergic reaction. ''Sufferers may also experience abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhoea. Immunoglobin E expands blood vessels, causing a drop in blood pressure, which leads to fainting or unconsciousness.'' (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical notes/372558.stm) IN our considered view, the death of the patient was most probably caused due to reaction to the injection given to him. The appellant was not qualified to practise medicine. He could neither prescribe medicines, nor give injections unless they were prescribed by some qualified practitioner. He should have referred the patient to a doctor. In prescribing allopathic medicines and injections, for which he was not qualified, he was guilty of negligence. However, as already pointed out exact cause of death of the patient could not be ascertained. It cannot be thus said that the death was the direct result of the faulty treatment given by the appellant. Under the circumstance, award of compensation Rs. 60,000 was not justified. In our considered view, award of compensation Rs. 25,000 will meet the ends of justice. We accordingly allow the appeal in part and reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 25,000. Rest of the order of the Forum below regarding payment of interest and cost shall remain unaltered. We make no order as to the cost of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.