MOHAR SINGH & ANR. vs RAJENDRA @ RAJU

The petitioner No.1 Mohar Singh who is the son of petitioner No.2 Smt. Jasoda, was suffering from jaundice and, therefore, was taken by his mother to the respondent/opposite party for treatment. The respondent/opposite party was allegedly giving medicines and administering injections to the sick persons visiting him in the village of the complainants, though he had not even studied medicine. According to the complainant a sum of Rs.165/- was charged by the respondent from them for treatment and an injection was given to the child who had a reaction to the said injection and started trembling. On the advice of the respondent he was taken to Gangapur from, where he was taken to Jaipur and admitted in J.K. Loan Hospital from 27-04-2005 to 04-05-2005. This is also the case of the complainant that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was spent on the treatment of the complainant No.1 Shri Mohar Singh. The complainants approached the concerned District Forum seeking reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on the treatment of the complainant No.1 along with compensation.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent/opposite party on the ground that he was not practising medicine and he had not given any injection to the complainant No.1.

Vide order dated 20-09-2007 the District Forum directed the respondent/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation inclusive of the cost of the treatment to the complainants.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the opposite party approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 21-08-2009 the State Commission upheld the finding of the District Forum that the opposite party/respondent had actually administered an injection to complainant No.1 but reduced the quantum of compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Both the parties are aggrieved from order passed by the State Commission and consequently have filed separate revision petitions challenging the said order.

It is an admitted position before us that the respondent/opposite party has not studied medicine and is not authorized to practice as a medical practitioner. The disputed question of fact before us is as to whether the opposite party had treated the complainant No.1 and given an injection to him on 25-04-2005 or not. A concurrent finding of fact has been returned in this regard by the District Forum as well as the State Commission holding that he had actually administered an injection to the complainant No.1 and that he was practicing as a medical practitioner in the village of the complainants. We will not be justified in interfering with the aforesaid concurrent finding of fact, in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction, unless the same is shown to be perverse. On a perusal of the record we find that not only the mother of the complainant No.1, but a number of other villagers filed affidavits stating therein that the respondent/opposite party was representing to be a doctor and treating several patients travelling from village to village. The complainants filed affidavits of Kishorilal, Kripal Singh, Bhanwaroo Khan, Dashrath Singh, Rasheed Khan and Ramjilal Sharma three of whom are residents of village Tamolipura and three of them are residents of Badh Salempur. The complainants are also residents of village Badh Salempur. Thus, affidavits of three residents of the same village and three residents of the nearby village Tamolipura were thus filed by the complainants in support of their case. All the six deponents clearly stated in their respective affidavits that Rajendra @ Raju was practising as a doctor in the shop of Piare Lal for last 7-8 years and was dispensing medicines and administering injections. They also stated that he was travelling from village to village, dispensing medicines and administering injections. The affidavits further show that when the father of the complainant No.1 lodged an FIR with the police he closed the shop and left for Gangapur. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the aforesaid affidavits of the persons residing in the village of the complainants and the adjoining village. The opposite party/respondent does not claim any enmity or ill-will between him and the aforesaid witnesses. Therefore, they had no reason to file false affidavits against him.

Admittedly, an FIR was also lodged by the father of the complainant No.1 against respondent in respect of the incident in question and a charge sheet under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act was filed against him. In the FIR the date of the incident was recorded as 01-05-2005, but later on it was clarified in the charge sheet that the incident of administering injection to complainant No.1 happened on 25-04-2005 and not on 01-05-2005.

Considering the overwhelming evidence produced by the complainant in the form of affidavits of several villagers coupled with the conclusion drawn by the police in the investigation conducted by it, no exception can be taken to the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission. In any case, it cannot be said that no reasonable person, acting on the aforesaid material could have taken a view which the District Forum and the State Commission took in this case. Therefore, no ground for interference with the aforesaid concurrent finding of fact is made out.

Coming to the quantum of compensation, the case of the complainant is that a tumor developed on the buttock of the complainant No.1 on account of the injection administered to him by the opposite party. However, no medical evidence was produced by the complainants to prove that the aforesaid tumor had developed on account of the injection given by the opposite party. In fact, a perusal of the letter sent by Dr. Shyam Bihari Sharma to the Superintendent of the Hospital would show that the tumor on the hip of the complainant No.1 was a benign lesion possibly having a fibrous origin and it could not have been developed on account of administration of an injection. In these circumstances, it would be difficult for us to say that the tumor on the hip of the complainant No.1 had developed on account of an injection administered to him by the respondent/opposite party.

However, if a person who has no education in medicine dispenses medicines and administers injection to a sick person that by itself will be a case of gross negligence and deficiency in rendering service, since such a person is not at all equipped with requisite knowledge and expertise to dispense medicines and/or administering injections to a patient brought to him. If persons such as the respondent before us, is allowed to practice medicine, that is likely to jeopardize the health and life of the patients, on account of consumption of a wrong medicine or administration of any injection which may not be suitable for treatment of the ailment from which he is suffering. Such persons pose a great risk to the society particularly illiterate and semi illiterate persons living in villages and remote areas who do not always have access to qualified doctors and government hospitals/dispensaries and, therefore, may, in sheer desperation, approach such self-styled doctors for treatment of the ailments from which they are suffering. Therefore, adequate compensation needs to be awarded in such cases not only with a view to compensate the complainants but also with a view to discourage such persons from engaging into such practices and jeopardizing the health and safety of other persons in the society who may approach them under a belief that they are qualified doctors and, therefore, will be able to treat them for the disease from which they are suffering.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the respondent/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants along with interest on that amount at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from the date of the filing of the complaint till the date of payment. The aforesaid payment shall be made by the opposite party within eight weeks from today failing which the complainants shall be entitled to execute this order in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act including Section 27 thereof. The revision petitions stand disposed of.