Nachhatar Singh vs MALKEET SINGH

DISTRICT Forum, Faridkot on March 25, 1998 allowed complaint filed by Malkeet Singh against Nachhatar Singh Tohra. A direction was given to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- to be straightway paid to Malkeet Singh, complainant whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- payable to minor Gagandeep Kaur was ordered to be deposited in the State Bank of Patiala, Faridkot in Special Term Deposit till attainment of majority. The said order has been challenged in this appeal filed by the opposite party, Nachhatar Singh.

ON May 15, 1997 Gagandeep Kaur, a minor daughter of Malkeet Singh suffered fracture on her left arm. She was taken to the opposite party, Nachhatar Singh who used to provide treatment for fractured bones. ON charging fee of Rs. 500/- Nachhatar Singh applied plaster of paris on the arm of Gagandeep Kaur. A prescription for medicines was also got prepared at his dictation. ON subsequent visit, he charged Rs. 150/-. In spite of this, there was no cure. Ultimately, the patient was taken to a doctor who provided necessary treatment. In all the complainant had to spent Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. In the complaint filed before the District Forum a sum of Rs. one lac was claimed as compensation on account of loss suffered due to deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party. Nachhatar Singh Tohra contested the complaint by submitting his version. All the allegations made by the complainant were denied. He denied having given any treatment to Gagandeep Kaur. He also denied having got prepared the prescription slip. In fact he did not give any treatment much less charging of fees. Replication was filed by the complainant reiterating the stand as taken up in the complaint. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum while holding deficiency in rendering service allowed the compensation as referred to above.

We have gone through the grounds of appeal and have heard Counsel for the respondent. It is asserted on behalf of the appellant that at no stage the complainant disclosed any representation having been made by the opposite party, proclaiming to give treatment for fractured bones. No such sign board was displayed at the outside the house of the opposite party inviting patients for treatment. Even the complainant did not assert that he hired the services of the appellant or that the appellant had agreed or promised to set the bones right. It has further been asserted in the ground of appeals that without any medical evidence no finding regarding negligence on the part of the opposite party could be arrived at. It is further asserted that so-called prescription slip is not of medicines but is of ghee, sugar and grounded gram etc. (tonics) to strengthen the body. The District Forum wrongly asserted and described the appellant as a quack. From a quack the skill of a doctor was not expected. The complainant cannot be treated as a consumer as no fees were charged.

WE have given due consideration to such like assertion as taken up in the ground of appeal. But we find no merit in this appeal. As per evidence of Malkeet Singh (two affidavits produced by him), the fractured bones were exposed as found on the child and the opposite party had put plaster. This treatment was not proper. In the complaint specifically it was asserted that the plaster was applied on the first day. No doubt putting plaster is one of the modes of treatment of management of bones. However, when bones were exposed putting of the plaster was not expected. In the written statement filed, the factum of putting of the plaster was not specifically denied. The argument as in the grounds of appeal that medical evidence in the form of expert witness should have been produced to prove negligence cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The complainant produced X-ray, Ultrasound and Prescription Slip and referred to the same in his affidavit. Thus such documents could be relied upon. On ultrasound fracture of the bone was observed and prescription of the doctor indicated debridment having been done suggesting that cells on the skin were dying which were removed. There is no merit in the assertion that only from medical expert negligent act could be proved. Admittedly, the appellant is not a qualified doctor. Whatever knowledge he had gained from his experience in giving such treatment, may be, but that does not authorise him to provide such services on charging fees. The very fact that unqualified persons attempted to render services of a doctor on charging fees will amounts to quackery as has been rightly described in the impugned order and their continuance cannot be encouraged. Poor people should expect poor quality of medical service cannot be made a rule. It is for the protection of such poor people that Consumer Protection Act has been enacted to safeguard their rights. May be other remedies, criminal in nature, are available but that can hardly be a ground to deny the relief to the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act. The point taken up in the ground of appeal in this respect only deserves to be mentioned to be rejected.

WHEN a young girl has suffered fracture of the arm proper treatment was required to be given to her. If the appellant had provided imperfect treatment ruining her future prospects in life, no leniency deserves to be taken in favour of the appellant. No doubt on the question of disability some better evidence could be made available but that does not mean that the complainant is to be totally deprived of the compensation. A reasonable and just compensation is required to be fixed in such cases even in the absence of actual loss having been suffered. Rather it is very difficult for taking a strict view in the matter of fixing of compensation in the matter of minor child who had to bear with the loss, for life time. The amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable, which does not call for interference in this appeal. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.