BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member
Tuesday, the 09th day of April, 2013
CC. No. 68 of 2011
Between:
Md. Hafeez s/o Ismailsab,
Age about 40 years, Occ: Auto driver,
R/o Chinthalghat Village, Koheer Mandal,
Medak District. ……Complainant
And
Dr. Md. Jahangir S/o Khajamiya,
Aged about 35 years, Occ: RMP Doctor,
R/o Venkatapur Village, Koheer Mandal,
Medak District.
……Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 26.03.2013 in the presence of M/s M.K. Nizamuddin, Advocate for complainant and M/s Syed Ahmed, Advocate for Opposite party and on hearing the arguments and perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Se Sri Patil Vithal Rao, President)
The complainant has approached this Forum by way of the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that when he consulted the opposite party with a complaint of stomachache on 22.05.2011, the opposite party, being a private medical practitioner, treated him by giving an injection to the right hand and buttocks resulting in swelling and severe pain at the injected place. The complainant has further contended that on the referral from the opposite party, he approached Balaji hospital, Sangareddy and took medicines but when the pain aggravated, he took further treatment at Mythri Hospital, Chandanagar, Hyderabad, Vijaya Mary Hospital, Hyderabad and Mahavir Hospital and Research Center, Hyderabad by incurring huge expenditure which he could meet by way of raising loans from his relatives and friends. He attributed negligence and carelessness on the part of the opposite party in treating him and accordingly claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation against the opposite party.
2. The opposite party in his written version, denied all the adverse allegations made in the complaint against him by contending that the complainant never approached him for any treatment. His sole defence is that due to family dispute the complainant implicated him in the present false case and as such prayed to dismiss the same.
3. The complainant has filed his affidavit and also examined Dr. Partha Saradhi & Dr. V. Prakash Babu and relied on Exs.A1 to A5 to substantiate his case. The opposite party has filed his affidavit, in defence.
Both the parties did not file written arguments. Heard.
4. Now the point for consideration is that whether the complainant is entitled for compensation on the ground of deficiency of service, against the opposite party, as prayed for?
Point:
5. At the outset it is to be noted that the complainant is a rustic villager and an auto driver by avocation. In the near by village, it seems, the opposite party practices medicines as a quack. It is a common knowledge that poor villagers seek medical aid from such quacks under compelling and unavoidable circumstances. The present case is one of such kind.
6. As per the complainant, on 22.05.2011, he suffered stomachache and approached opposite party for treatment. Surprisingly the opposite party administered medicine by way of an injection even without basic investigation and also prescribed some medicines. The result was inevitable. The complainant had to take recourse to various hospitals due to consequential health complications. Ex. A1 is a bunch of medical papers containing reports of pathological investigation, medical bills, treatments, medical prescriptions, Doctor’s notes etc., evidencing the above noted fact. It is clearly evident from the said medical record that on the very next day of the incident i.e., on 23.05.2011, the complainant was taken to Mythri Hospital, Chandanagar, Hyderabad after his initial visit to Balaji Hospital, Sangareddy. Ex. A5 is prescription and a referral letter of the opposite party advising the complainant to go to Balaji hospital, Sangareddy. It seems he was not treated at the said hospital, may be for want of adequate facilities. As per the evidence of RMO of Mythri Hospital, PW. 3, the complainant was brought to the said hospital in a serious condition. After administering vital medicines he was advised to join in ICU but as refused for the same, he could not be treated further there. The evidence of PW. 3 further shows that the complainant had taken an injection from a local practitioner prior to his shifting to the Mythri Hospital. This local practitioner must be the opposite party himself. Because the referral letter, Ex. A5 which is dated. 22.05.2011 substantiates the said presumption. This document also contains the medicines administered by opposite party to the complainant during the course of his treatment on 22.05.2011. When the health condition of the complainant deteriorated, he was taken from Mythri Hospital to Vijaya Mary hospital, Hyderabad and after initial treatment there, he was shifted to a corporate hospital, Mahavir Hospital & Research Center, Hyderabad. The medical papers under Ex. A1 shows the particulars of all the treatment of the complainant and the expenditure incurred by him for the same amounting to about Rs. One lakh.
7. The consultant physician of Mahavir Hospital, Hyderabad has also given his evidence as PW. 2 with regard to the serious heath condition of the complainant at the time of his admission on emergency basis on 24.05.2011 and the treatment for the same. In his opinion, the complainant could have suffered swelling on hand and buttocks due to underlying auto immune disorder with unknown drug allergy. Though the learned counsel for the opposite party cross examined this witness, he could not elicit anything adverse to the complainant’s case. It is also to be noted that the complainant, as PW.1, was also cross examined by the defence counsel. He has categorically deposed about all the facts noted in the complaint and the contents of Ex. A1 to A5. His version did not shake any where even in the cross examination. In fact the oral testimony of PW. 2 & PW. 3 supported by the documentary evidence noted supra amply substantiate the case of the complainant.
8. After getting discharged from the hospital, the complainant got issued a legal notice, Ex. A2 to the opposite party claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of the negligent treatment given to him by the opposite party. Ex. A3 & A4 are copies of postal acknowledgement for Ex. A2. It is pertinent to note that though the opposite party has filed his counter and evidence affidavit alleging a family dispute as root cause for the present complaint, he has neither given any particulars of the same nor any proof in that regard. It is well settled proposition of law that mere pleading is not proof. Thus any amount of pleadings without any scrap of evidence is of no avail. Therefore the bald allegation in the written version and evidence affidavit of the opposite party can not be accepted and acted upon.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion we hold that the complainant has successfully established the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in claiming compensation against him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed in the foregone paras the quantum of compensation is reasonably settled at Rs. 1,25,000/- to meet the ends of justice and equity.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the present litigation to the complainant within one month from this day.
Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 9th day of April, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
- The complainant.
- The opposite party.
- Spare copy.
