VEER SINGH vs Krishna Sharma

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-Petitioners, who were the complainants before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aligarh (for short ''the District Forum) have filed the present Revision Petition against the Order dated 2.2.2006 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short, ''the State Commission'') wherein and whereunder the Appeal of the petitioners was disposed of with certain directions thereby reducing the overall amount awarded by the District Forum to Rs. 50,000.

SHORTLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present complaint are: Petitioner No. 2, wife of petitioner No. l was admitted in Preeti Nursing Home situated at Jattari Bypass Road, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh on 10.12.1997 which was being run by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as she was having pain in Abdomen and Uterus. Respondent No. 3 was working as Assistant and Nurse in the said Nursing Home. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 advised Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) and assured that after MTP operation, petitioner No. 2 shall recover and will not suffer pain in future. They were paid Rs. 2,400 in all including Rs. 400 for medicines. It was alleged in the complaint that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 performed MTP operation without taking due precautions such as blood tests and several other examinations necessary for MTP operation which resulted in excessive bleeding and injury to Uterus and Intestines. That physical condition of petitioner No. 2 became critical because of which she was taken to Rawat Hospital which was being run by respondent No. 4 for necessary treatment. That the said Hospital gave necessary treatment and blood transfusion and she remained admitted Hospital of respondent No. 4 for a period of one month and spent Rs. 85,000 including operation fee, rent of room, etc. That in spite of treatment, petitioner No. 2 did not become fully normal. The damage caused to the internal system persisted. Even respondent No. 4 advised that petitioner No. 2 be taken to some other doctor as it was beyond his capacity to cure the patient. On examination through ultrasound, it was detected that petitioner No. 2 had clots in the Uterus because of which she continues to be sick. That petitioner No. 1 was a poor person and, due to paucity of funds, he is unable to get proper treatment for petitioner No. 2. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation for the injuries; caused to petitioner No. 2 due to the negligence on the part of the respondents.

ON being served, respondents filed their Written Statement denying the allegations made in the complaint.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings and the evidence led by both the parties, partly allowed the complaint and directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to give Rs. 35,000 as treatment expenditure and Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to petitioner No. 1. Rs. 500 were awarded as costs. The amount was directed to be paid within 30 days from the date of the Order failing which the respondents were directed to pay interest @ 10% on the total amount from the date of Order till realisation.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the District Forum, respondents filed the Appeal before the State Commission which was partly allowed by the impugned Order. The amount of compensation was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000, which had already been deposited by the respondents as no documentary evidence had been produced by the petitioners to conclusively establish the expenditure incurred by them for meeting out the treatment first at the Nursing Home of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and, thereafter, at the Hospital of respondent No. 4.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the State Commission, petitioners have filed the present Revision Petition.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

COUNSEL appearing for the petitioners contends that petitioner No. 2 was admitted in the Hospital of respondent No. 4 for a period of one month where she was operated for the second time. That Rs. 35,000, ordered to be paid towards the expenses and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000, under the circumstances, granted by the District Forum, were not excessive. That the State Commission had erred in reducing the amount of compensation to Rs. 50,000 without assigning any reasons. As against this, Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the amount of compensation granted by the State Commission is sufficient.

TAKING overall view of the case, we are of the opinion that Rs. 35,000 as awarded by the District Forum towards the treatment was not excessive and the State Commission has erred in deleting the sum of Rs. 35,000 granted by the District Forum as costs for the treatment. State Commission has not given any reason for reducing the compensation from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000. Petitioner No. 2 had remained in the Hospital for nearly 11/2 months and has not become fully normal even today. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the State Commission had erred in reducing the overall amount payable to the petitioners to Rs. 50,000.

FOR the reasons stated above, we allow this Revision Petition, set aside the Order of the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum. Respondents are directed to make the payment of the awarded amount after deducting the amount which has already been deposited by them under the Orders of the State Commission within one month from today failing which they would be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the balance amount from the date of passing of this Order till realisation. Revision Petition allowed.