PREM SINGH VERMA vs PREETAMLAL

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act'') directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter referred to as the ''District Forum'') in Complaint Case No. 55/2002. The District Forum by the impugned order has held the appellant/O.P. deficient in service and directed payment of Rs. 2,25,000 with interest @ 9% per annum from 1.5.2002 and, Rs. 300 as cost of the complaint to the respondent/complainant.

GRIEVANCE of the complainant is that he sells Khanda Dal by moving from village to village and that O.P. is a medical practitioner treating patients on payment of fee. It is contended that his wife, Pramila, aged 28 years, delivered a female child on 20.2.2002 complained of weakness. O.P. was sent for by the complainant through Pramila''s father. On 25.2.2002 O.P. arrived and after examining Pramila told that an injection will be required. He was permitted to do so and he injected some medicine on Pramila''s hip. A fee of Rs. 80 was paid. Pramila developed pain in her legs. On the next day, the O.P. was informed of the problem who assured that no other medicine is required and that she will improve. But the pain in Pramila''s leg increased and the O.P. was called but he did not turn up though he had promised to do so. On 28.2.2002 the pain grew intolerable and still the O.P. did not come although called again. Therefore, Pramila was shifted to the Government District Hospital Rajnandgaon on the night intervening 28.2.2000 and 1.3.2002 at about 1 a.m. Doctor attending Pramila informed that there was reaction of the wrong medicine. On 1.3.2002 Pramila was discharged from Government District Hospital, Rajnandgaon and referred to a higher centre. She was taken to the Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Bhilai on 2.3.2002. and was admitted where she expired on 22.3.2002. It is stated that the O.P. was called several times in the meanwhile but he only told that he will pay for all the hospital expenses. On 21.3.2002 the O.P. also wrote a letter to this effect.

It is stated that the complainant''s wife Pramila died due to the treatment by the O.P. and a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 has been prayed for.

COMPLAINANT has filed his own affidavit as well as that of Kriparam son of Kalluram, Benabai wife of Panchram, and documents related to treatment in various hospitals. O.P. has stated that he is an Ayurved Ratna and has worked as compounder with Dr. R.K. Mahobe, MD at Rajnandgaon for 10 years and is called doctor by the villagers. It is also stated that because of his experience people come to him for advice. O.P. in his written version has stated that he was called by the complainant on 25.2.2002 to treat the deceased Pramilabai who had delivered a child on 20.2.2002, but he advised him to take her to a gynaecologist. The allegation that he treated and injected Pramila and received a consideration of Rs. 80 is categorically denied as false. It is also denied the O.P. is liable for any deficiency in service.

FIRST question for consideration is whether the O.P. injected some medicine to Pramilabai. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that he neither treated the complainant''s wife Pramila nor received any consideration. It was strongly stated that he was consulted regarding the deceased Pramila and advised the family to take her to a gynecologist. Learned Counsel for the complainant referred to the affidavits of the complainant as well as that of Kriparam and one Benabai wife of Panchram Verma, a neighbour of the deceased. Benabai in her affidafit has stated that the O.P. injected the deceased Pramila in her presence and received Rs. 80 as consideration. It is also stated that Pramila complained of pain in the legs and asked her husband to tell this to Premram. This affidavit has neither been controverted nor has any attempt to cross-examine Benabai been made. Moreover, complainant has filed a document allegedly written by the O.P. to meet all the expenses regarding the treatment of Pramilabai.

O.P. has denied having written any such document. However, during the appeal the O.P. has filed a copy of a complaint stating that the said document was written by him on being threatened by Pritam Verma and 7-8 others forcibly on 21.3.2002. The said complaint allegedly given to Police Station in-charge, Ghumka on 23.3.2002. Strangely enough the said document also includes the name of Pramilabai, the deceased among the persons who threatened the O.P. It is also noted that the O.P. in his reply to his complaint has flatly denied having written any such document and has not mentioend any such allegation of the document having been obtained forcibly. Therefore, the contention of the O.P. on this count cannot be believed and is an afterthought and we are inclined to believe that the O.P. did inject the deceased Pramila, as stated in the complaint.

FROM the Discharge Ticket of the District Hospital Rajnandgaon it appears that the deceased Pramila was diagnosed, as suffering from PNC (Post Natal Complications) and Cellulites inflammation (inflammation of the cellular or connective tissues) over the gluteal region (buttocks). Cause of death stated in the certificate issued by JLN Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai has been stated as ''Septicaemia and Rt. Lower Limb Nacrotisifastitis'' (death of areas of tissues or bone surrounded by healthy parts). In view of the above discussion and the medical reports on record in our opinion the finding of the District Forum holding the O.P. liable for deficiency in service is based on sound reasoning and deserves to be upheld.

It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded is excessive and will entirely ruin the appellant. It was also submitted that a criminal case has also been registered against the appellant and he has been convicted by the Trial Court.

IT is noted that the deceased Pramila had delivered a female child on 20.2.2002, only 5 days prior to the unfortunate date on which an injection was administered by the appellant. Delivery had taken place at the residence of the deceased, Pramila. On admission to the District Hospital she was diagnosed as a case of PNC (Post Natal Complication). Cause of death as stated in the certificate issued by JLN Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai has been stated as Septicaemia and Rt. Lower Limb Nacrotisi-fastitis (death of areas of tissues or bone surrounded by healthy parts). Septicaemia is a known complication of delivery. As per Taber''s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, it occurs ''following prolonged and difficult labour or incomplete abortion''.

THEREFORE, in our opinion although the appellant cannot be absolved from treating the deceased and rendered him liable for deficiency in service, the death resulted on account of septicaemia as a complication of delivery. THEREFORE, the negligence on the part of the appellant by venturing to treat the deceased does not appear to be the sole cause of death, though he cannot escape the blame of contributory negligence. Thereafter in our opinion an amount of Rs. 35,000 as compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, if para 11 of the impugned order is revised as under- appellant shall pay Rs. 35,000 as compensation to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from 1.5.2002 and Rs. 300 as cost of the complaint. The said amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum if not paid within 2 months of this order. Ordered accordingly.