PHOOL BAI GUPTA vs R. BHATTACHARYA

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 3.4.2003 in Complaint No. 287/1999 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, (hereinafter called District Forum for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

THE averments of the complainant/appellant stated in brief are that as she suffered from fever she consulted respondent No. 1 Dr. R. Bhattacharya on 23.7.1999. She was given treatment and medicines for 12 days by Dr. R. Bhattacharya. However, she suffered from drug reaction and boils erupted in her body. THE respondent told her that she suffered from chickenpox and admitted her in hospital from 7.8.1999 to 9.8.1999. Whereafter she was discharged and referred to District Hospital, Bilaspur. THEreafter, the respondent Dr. R. Bhattacharya was approached by Durga Prasad Gupta, the father-in-law of the appellant, Shri Mohan Bhojwani and Dr. Subhash Soni for taking steps for curing the drug reaction suffered by the appellant. However, the respondent Dr. R. Bhattacharya did not take any care of the problem, with which the complainant was suffering. It was further averred by the complainant that as a result of the drug reaction as above, the complainant''s right eye was permanently damaged and she had to undergo treatment of Dr. Jain and Dr. Madharia for which she had to incur expenditure of Rs. 30,000/-. She accordingly prayed that compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- be awarded. The complaint was initially filed only against the respondent No. 1 Dr. R. Bhattacharya. It appears that subsequently respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Dr. Mrs. R. Bhattacharya and Oriental Insurance Co. have been impleaded on 29.4.2002.

The complaint was resisted by the respondents. The respondent No. 1 Dr. R.K. Bhattacharya, in his written statement denied that he treated the complainant/appellant. It was also denied that there any drug reaction due to which the complainant suffered loss of sight or other complications. The respondent No. 3 who was subsequently impleaded has also denied the allegations as above. It was averred that she was unnecessarily impleaded. She has averred that she gave medicines to the complainant on 23.7.1999 which were safe medicines and there could not be any reaction from the said medicines.

THE District Forum in the impugned order held that the complainant has failed to prove that there was any drug reaction due to which she suffered loss of sight etc., as alleged by her. It was also observed in the above context that no expert opinion was produced by the complainant. THE complaint was accordingly dismissed. The learned Counsel for the parties were heard and record was perused.

IT appears that the complainant was treated by the respondent No. 3 and not by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 in her written statement has given the particulars and details of the medicines prescribed by her to the complainant, for the ailment as disclosed to her by the complainant. According to the respondent No. 3 the medicines prescribed by her were safe medicines and there could not be any drug reaction therefrom. IT may also be noticed that the complainant has filed the affidavits of Dr. Subhash Soni, Mohan Bhojwani, Bipat Ram, Ajay Kesharwani as well as affidavit of herself and Chandrika Bai. Out of the said persons only Dr. Subhash Soni appears to be practising medicine. None of the other persons is a medical specialist and does not appear to have any knowledge about the medicines etc. IT may further be noticed that Dr. Subhash Soni has not disclosed his qualification and experience. He has also not filed any prescription etc. to show that he himself examined the complainant. From the affidavit of Dr. Soni it cannot be ascertained as to how he is qualified to opine about the ailment suffered by the complainant/Phool Bai. He appears to have sworn the affidavit in which he gave his opinion on the information given to him by the father-in-law of the complainant/appellant. Further he only states that on seeing the complainant it appeared to him that she did not suffer from chickenpox and it appeared to him that she had suffered from reaction of some medicines. Obviously, the affidavit as above of Dr. Subhash Soni is vague and not based on any data or tests. He was not even aware of the names of medicines given to the complainant and has not specified as to which of such medicines could cause such reaction. It appears that his opinion that the boils on the body of the complainant appear to be a reaction of some medicine is merely his guess work and is, therefore, not reliable. In the foregoing circumstances the said affidavit of Dr. Subhash Soni cannot be of any assistance to the complainant''s case. It would thus appear that the complainant has not substantiated her allegation that she suffered drug reaction on account of medicines prescribed or treatment given to her by Dr. Smt. R. Bhattacharya, respondent No. 3. It may also be noticed in the above context that Dr. (Colonel) Y.S. Dubey, M.D., (Medicine) and D.M. (Cardiology) has opined in his letter dated 10.4.2002 that the drugs prescribed by the respondent No. 3 are safe and are not likely to cause loss of vision. Reasons have been assigned in the said letter to support the opinion, which negates the allegation of the complainant/appellant that the loss of vision in her right eye was on account of drug reaction.

IN view of the above, it is clear that the complainant has not substantiated her averments with authoritative medical texts or expert opinion, that she suffered on account of any medicine prescribed by the respondent No. 3. The District Forum has considered the material and documents placed on record and has rightly concluded that the complainant has failed to prove her allegations of negligence or deficiency in service by the respondent No. 3 in the complainant''s treatment. The complainant, therefore, cannot succeed in her complaint, which was rightly dismissed by the District Forum. The impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference.

THERE is no substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.