Respondent/complainant who is a minor child was admitted in the petitioner’s hospital on complaint of pain. Doctor who attended the complainant/respondent administered six doses of penicillin injections over a course of three days to reduce the pain. The last dose of penicillin injection resulted in anaphylactic reaction, which resulted in loss of one limb. Alleging medical negligence on the part -2- of the petitioner Doctor, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent along with Rs.2,000/- as costs. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission contending that the respondent had failed to prove the medical negligence on his part; that the first dose of penicillin injection was given to the respondent after doing the reaction test; that there was no adverse reaction to the five doses of penicillin injection given earlier; that the anaphylactic reaction was only after the 6th dose of penicillin injection which resulted in loss of one limb. The State Commission relying upon the evidence of Dr. B. S. Bagi, who was a Dentist and not a Neurologist, held that the petitioner was guilty of ‘medical negligence’. Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present Revision Petition. Respondent did not appear in spite of service and was ordered to be proceeded ex parte on 10.08.2011. Even today, respondent is not present. -3- Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no medical negligence as the petitioner had given the first dose of penicillin injection after doing the reaction test. We find substance in this submission. Petitioner had given the doses of penicillin injections after doing the reaction test. There was no reaction in the first five doses of penicillin injection administered to the respondent. The reaction took place only on administering the 6th penicillin injection. Anaphylactic reaction can take place on administering the penicillin injection at any stage and such risks are inherent in such a situation. Petitioner had taken necessary precautions of administering penicillin injection by doing the reaction test which is the only possible thing which petitioner could do. Petitioner was not required to do the reaction test while administering each dose of penicillin. The affidavit of Dr. B. S. Bagi cannot be relied upon or taken to be an expert opinion as he is a ‘Dentist’ and not a ‘Neurologist’ in this filed. For the reasons stated above, the findings recorded by the fora below that the petitioner is guilty of medical negligence cannot be sustained and accordingly, set aside. -4- Since the anaphylactic reaction has resulted in the loss of one limb of the respondent which requires long care and attention by the family, the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the fora below be given as ex gratia payment by the petitioner. This direction is given on the peculiar facts of this case and be not taken as a precedent for future reference. Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent by way of ex gratia payment within eight weeks. The State Commission is directed to refund the sum of Rs.26,000/- to the petitioner deposited under the directions dated 17.07.2007 of this Commission. In case the respondent has already withdrawn the sum of Rs.26,000/- then the petitioner shall pay the balance amount of Rs.24,000/- to the respondent within eight weeks. | 
