MULTI SUPER SPECIALITY DENTAL HOSPITAL & ANR. Vs B. KRISHNAMURTHY

The complainant Sh. B. Krishnamurthy approached the District Forum with a complaint alleging that his wife late Smt. Santhi Priya, aged 53 years and a known diabetic patient, visited opposite party no. 2 Dr. K. Manohar, proprietor of opposite party no. 1 Multi Super Speciality Dental Hospital on 21.09.2006 as an out-patient and an OPD ticket was issued to her. It was further alleged in the complaint that opposite party no. 2 extracted two teeth of the deceased

which lead to complications resulting in her death. It was also stated in the complaint that the patient had again consulted opposite party no. 2 and another prescription was given to her at that time though the said prescription did not bear any date. Alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, compensation to the extent of Rs. 15 lacs was claimed.

The opposite party contested the complaint primarily on the ground that the wife of the complainant never consulted him on 21.09.2006 and he did not extract her teeth. The opposite party also denied the allegations that he had advised X-ray to the deceased and later referred her case to ENT Surgeon. He also denied having given any prescription to her.

The complainant had filed, before the District Forum, the photocopy of a cash receipt no. 552 purporting to be dated 25.09.2006 and issued by Padmavati X-ray Clinic to Smt. Santhi Priya. It was recorded in the said photocopy of the receipt that the patient had been referred by Dr. Manohar B.D.S. Since the petitioner had disputed the authenticity of the said document, the District Forum summoned Padmavati X-ray Clinic to produce the original cash receipt book containing the receipt no. 552 dated 25.09.2006 for X-ray given in the name of Smt. Santhi Priya. In response to the said notice, Padmavati X-ray Clinic produced the carbon copy of receipt no. 552 purporting to be dated 25.09.2006. However, said carbon copy did not bear the endorsement (Ref; Dr. Manohar B.D.S.). It was also noted by the District Forum, when the book containing the aforesaid carbon copy was produced before it, that receipt no. 551 bore the date 25.10.2006 whereas receipt no. 553 bore the date 27.10.2006. In these circumstances, the District Forum, in our view was fully justified in concluding that said cash receipt purporting to be dated 25.09.2006 had been obtained with a view to file before the said forum. Otherwise, receipt no. 551 could not have been of 25.10.2006. It appears to us that receipt no. 551 was obtained by the complainant in connivance with Padmavati X-ray Clinic which was persuaded to put the date of 25.09.2006 on the document. This obviously was done since the wife of the complainant had already expired on 04.10.2006. Since the endorsement of reference by Dr. Manohar BDS did not appear on the carbon copy produced before the District Forum, it is also obvious that a tampered photocopy of the said receipt was filed by the complainant, before the District Forum, in order to create evidence of treatment by the said doctor. This clearly shows that the complainant filed manipulated record before the District Forum, which by itself could disentitle him to any relief.

The State Commission while reversing the order of the District Forum, accepted the contention of the complainant that the receipts for October, 2006 were summoned from Padmavati X-ray Clinic and the receipt for September, 2006 was not summoned. We, however, find from a perusal of the notice issued to Padmavati X-ray Clinic that not only the receipt number, but also the date (25.09.2006) was given in the said notice. Had there been some other receipt bearing number 552 and dated 25.09.2006, Padmavati X-ray Clinic would have produced the carbon copy of that receipt and not the carbon copy they actually produced. When the aforesaid document was produced before the District Forum, no request was made by the complainant to direct Padmavati X-ray Clinic to produce the receipts issued by them in the month of September, 2006. More importantly, there could not have been two separate receipts, both bearing the number 552 and dated 25.09.2006 in the name of Smt. Santhi Priya, aged 53 years. Therefore, the State Commission, in our view was not justified in setting aside the order by the District Forum on the aforesaid ground particularly when there was no endorsement of reference by the petitioner, in the said carbon copy. Had there been a receipt no. 552 dated 25.09.2006 in the name of Smt. Santhi Priya with an endorsement of reference from Dr. Manohar B.D.S., the complainant, in our view, would certainly have requested the District Forum to direct Padmavati X-ray Clinic to produce the carbon copy of that receipt. Since that was not done, the logical inference would be that Padmavati X-ray Clinic had issued only one receipt bearing no. 552 and that receipt, despite

having been issued on or after 25.10.2006, was dated as 25.09.2006, at the instance of the complainant. Moreover, the column in which the endorsement of reference appears in the photocopy filed by the complainant, was not meant for writing the name of the referring doctor. No X-ray report or X-ray film dated 25.09.2006, and containing endorsement of reference by the petitioner was produced by the complainant.

The State Commission observed that the complainant had taken his wife to the clinic of the petitioners for the purpose of her treatment. The aforesaid observation is factually incorrect since this was not the case of the complainant that he had accompanied his wife to the clinic of the petitioners. Nowhere did the complainant plead in the complaint filed by him that he had taken or accompanied his wife to the opposite party either on 21.09.2006 or on any date.

Considering the stand taken by the petitioner that he never treated the wife of the complainant, it was necessary for the complainant to lead independent evidence to prove the case set out by him in this regard. No oral evidence was produced by him to prove that his wife was treated by the petitioner. Since he had not accompanied his wife, he could not have been a witness to the said treatment. As far as the OPD ticket is concerned, it does not bear any signature. No evidence was led by the complainant to prove that the aforesaid document is in the hand of the petitioner Dr. Manohar B.D.S. In fact, during the course of the arguments, the complainant made a summersault in this regard and claimed that the aforesaid prescription was in the hand of one Dr. P. Mohan Reddy. He filed an application for permission to summon Dr. P. Mohan Reddy. The said application however, was not allowed considering that nowhere in the complaint it was pleaded that the prescription was in the hand of Dr. P. Mohan Reddy and the petitioner had taken an unequivocal stand that no such doctor was ever employed by him. We fail to appreciate what prevented the complainant from pleading in the complaint that the prescription was in the hand of Dr. P. Mohan Reddy, an employee of the opposite party. This is more so when the complainant claimed, in the application filed by him, that in his presence the petitioner had admonished Dr. P. Mohan Reddy asking him not to treat the women patients in this manner. Considering the absence of any reference to Dr. P. Mohan Reddy in the complaint and also taking into account the fact that no evidence was produced by the complainant before the District Forum to prove that any such doctor was actually employed by the petitioner, the District Forum, in our view, was fully justified in not summoning the said doctor as a witness. In fact, the submissions of the complainant before the District Forum gives an impression that he had contended that it was Dr. P. Mohan Reddy who had treated his wife though no such case was set out by him in the complaint and he was not impleaded as a party to the complaint.

We thus find that (1) the complainant did not produce any oral evidence to prove that his wife had consulted the petitioner who extracted her teeth, (2) no evidence was led by the complainant to prove that the prescription on the OPD ticket was in the hand of the petitioner and (3) the receipt no. 552 purporting to be dated 25.09.2006 was a procured and later forged document, and no evidence was led by the complainant to prove that Dr. P. Mohan Reddy had been employed by the petitioner, the District Forum was fully justified in rejecting the claim. The State Commission, in our view, committed a mistake in setting aside the otherwise well-reasoned order of the District Forum. The view taken by the State Commission, in our view, is contrary to the record and otherwise not sustainable. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount which the petitioner had deposited with this Commission, be refunded to him alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount. The fee of the amicus curiae be paid as per rules.