PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

            This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2002 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No.502/2000 against the order dated 19.1.2000 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.142-DF-99.  Both the consumer fora have held allegation of medical negligence ‘not proved’ and, therefore, dismissed the complaint.

Facts of the case in brief are that -- 

          On being approached for treatment of high fever, the opposite party allegedly administered an injection which resulted in an abcess.  It was alleged that an un-sterilized injection needle was used.  The complainant therefore had to approach other doctors and hospital for his treatment thereby incurring an expenditure of Rs.10,000/-.  It was also alleged that the opposite party was a quack and not a registered medical practitioner. 

          On notice, the complaint was resisted by opposite party.  Parties on being called upon to lead their respective evidence led evidence.  The District Forum on consideration and after hearing the counsel, came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to establish any case of medical negligence.  The District Forum was of the view that to prove medical negligence onus rested heavily on the complainant but he has failed to produce any document/medical slip of the opposite party – doctor with regard to administering of injection.  He has not even been able to pin point the exact date when he approached the opposite party.  The District Forum also dis-believed the plea of the complainant that the abcess was formed within 24 hrs. of the administration of the injection as there ought to have been some incubation period.  It has also been observed in the order of the District Forum that the complainant had approached the Police and Govt. medical authorities and also field a Civil Suit in the matter and dismissed the complaint.  The State Commission in similar vein affirmed the order of the District Forum.

          We have heard Mr. Patric, complainant/petitioner in person.  No one appeared on behalf of the respondent.  We have carefully perused the records.

          Mr.Patric, complainant has reiterated the stand taken by him before the District Forum.  According to him, it was the doing of Dr.Didar Singh Gill which has resulted in the forming of the abcess which aggravated  resulting in his approaching other hospitals for treatment thereby incurring heavy expenditure.  He has also contended that the opposite party is not a registered medical practitioner though he claims to be so.   He has been responsible for medical negligence in a number of cases which has been widely reported in the local press.

          From the record, we find that the complainant had first instituted Civil Suit No.234/1 on 15.6.99 in the Court of Shri D.K.Mittal, PCS, Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Jalandhar which was finally dismissed on 20.8.2001.  During the pendency of the Civil Suit, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum which has met with a similar fate.  The State Commission in Appeal too has dismissed the complaint.  The records also indicate that the matter had been referred to the medical authority i.e. the Civil Surgeon where again the findings were that the allegations were not proved.  The complainant has not been  able to show any illegality or jurisdictional impropriety in the impugned order.  Thus, we  find no occasion to exercise our supervisory  jurisdiction in this case so as to set aside the concurrent findings of Fora below.  The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.