BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Saturday the 25th day of October, 2008
C.C.No. 56/08
Between:
Sri. Madiga Pedda Madanna, S/o. Late Lakshmanna,
Udumulapadu Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District.
… Complainant
Versus
A. Pavan Kumar, R.M.P,
D.No.18/99, Pathapeta, Dhone Post and Mandal, Kurnool District.
… Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S. Baleeswara Reddy, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.56/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act seeking an award on the opposite party for Rs.5 lakhs and cost of the case alleging the demise of Madhu Krishna son of the complainant on 8-3-2006 at the medical negligence of the opposite party in treating him for fever and the deceased as bread winner of the family as earning Rs.5,000/- per month on Gold Smithary and there by caused loss of earning member of the family and the police registering the case on demise of said Madhu Krishna – as Cr.No.44/2006 on the opposite party and opposite party giving a vague reply to the legal notice dated 11-2-2007 of the complainant .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused his appearance through his counsel and contested the case denying any medical treatment to the deceased and there by any liability to the complainants claim.
3. The written version of the opposite party besides the questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case and requiring the strict proof of complaint averments allege that he is not a qualified doctor to give any treatment to the patients and not lending any treatment to the complainants son advised to take a qualified doctor and he is not Pavan Kumar as alleged in complaint as he Praveen Kumar and the case is foisted against him to have a wrongful gain and so seeks dismissal of the case for want of proper cause of action .
4, In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A5 and sworn affidavit of the complainant , the opposite party has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B4 and his sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of the opposite party and there by the liability of the opposite party for complainants claim.
6. The complainant except alleging that the opposite party has administered medicines and injections to his son when he was taken for treatment for hi-fever and inspite of its denial by the opposite party the complainant did not substantiate it by any cogent material record such as prescriptions of medicines purchase bills of the medicines and injections said to have been administered in the treatment of the complainant son by the opposite party or by any fees payment receipt of the opposite party for treatment alleged to have been rendered . Nor by filling the affidavit of the said Dr. Prabhakar Reddy to whom the deceased was taken in last stage. Hence the complainant is remaining primarily failing in discharge of the burden of proof of the alleged treatment rendered by the opposite party to the son of the complainant being in obligation of its proof in the light of the total denial of treatment by the opposite party .
7. The Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the FIR in Cr.NO.44/2006 of P.S. Dhone registered under Sec.304 – A IPC on the report of the complainant on Pavan Kumar, RMP doctor , Dhone for demise of Madiga Madhu Krishna ( son of the complainant) on account of negligent and deficient treatment rendered for the complaint of high-fever to the deceased son of the complainant. The inquest report in Ex.A2 – held by policy on said deceased – also alleges the demise on account of negligency in treatment rendered by said Pavan Kumar . But none of the witnesses of said inquest were examined by the complainant side by way of their affidavits even to lend corroboration to the said opinion mentioned in said inquest as to the cause of the demise of the deceased . The post mortem examination report in Ex.A3 pertaining said deceased is remaining of any avail to the complainants case as it does not assign any reason for demise of the deceased as reserves opinion for want of FSL report and Histo pathological examination report and so there is any medical evidence even is there to believe the truth in the alleged complaint averments that the demise of deceased occurred at the over dosing of the medicines or improper administration of medicine.
8. Even though the legal notice of the complainant in Ex.A4 reiterates the complainants case but it is not remaining of any avail to the complainant as the reply of the opposite party in Ex.A5 clearly denies it and obligates the complainant of its primary proof which the complainant did not made any endeavour by proving the same by any cogent corroborating material or evidence.
9. The Ex.B1 provisional certificate said to have been issued by St. John Ambulance Association, A.P. merely says of the opposite party undergoing training in first aid course and the Ex.B2 another provisional certificate issued by same St. John Ambulance Association, A.P envisages the opposite party undergoing training in Home Nursing Course . The Ex.B3 SSC certificate indicates that the opposite party passed only SSC . By the above what appears is that the opposite party is not a qualified doctor to admit injections and medicines and to render the treatment to ailing patients. In the light of the denial of the opposite party as to any administration of medicines to the deceased and the post mortem report any where opines the demise of the deceased was on account of improper administration of medicines , there remains any possibility to hold the indulgence of the opposite party in the demise of the complainants son , especially when the case registered vide Ex.A1 against Pavan Kumar ( opposite party ?) ended in acquittal vide judgment in Ex.B4 finding the accused there in not guilty of the charges leveled against him .
10. The complainant claims an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on demise of his son at the alleged treatment of opposite party alleging his son was earning Rs.5,000/- per month on Gold Smithary and as was bread winner of the family it is a lost to the family . Apart from failing in establishing the link of the opposite party to the demise of the complainant son , the complainant did not made any endeavour in establishing the so called deceased’s earnings and his status as bread winner of the family and the loss to the family income on account of said demise of his son . Hence there appears any justness in the claim of the complainant for Rs.5 lakhs as compensation .
11. In sum up of the above discussion , as the complainant failed to establish the nexus between the demise of his son and the opposite party in reference to the alleged treatment and the justness in the compensation claimed , there appears any bonafidees and proper cause of action for the complainant creating any liability on the opposite party for complainants claim .
12, consequently, the case of the complainant being devoid merit and force is dismissed with cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 25th day of October, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Certified copy of FIR in Cr. No.44/2006 of PS Dhone.
Ex.A2. Certified copy of Inquest report in Cr.No.44/2006.
Ex.A3. Certified copy of post mortem certificate.
Ex.A4. Office copy of legal notice dated 11-02-2007.
Ex.A5. Reply of OP dated 19-02-2006.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Xerox copy of provisional certificate issued to OP for
first aid course.
Ex.B2. Attested Xerox copy of provisional certificate issued to OP
for Home Nursing Home.
Ex.B3. Attested Xerox copy SSC certificate of OP.
Ex.B4. Certified copy of Calendar & Judgment in C.C.No.269/2006
Of JFCM, Dhone.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
