Gurbinder Kaur complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental torture and pain due to wrong treatment given by the opposite party, Rs.5000/- as medical expenses, Rs.5000/- on account of nursing by the family members and Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment and interest @ 2% per month on the total amount of Rs.70,000/- with effect from 18/8/2006 till realization of the amount alongwith Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in her complaint that the complainant is the resident of village Pacca Tehsil and District Faridkot and opposite party is also resident of same village. On 18/8/2006 the complainant felt severe pain in her legs and she visited the opposite party for getting treatment as the opposite party is running her clinic in her house from the last so many years and she declared herself as a lady doctor in the village. The opposite party after inspecting her told that she is suffering from weakness, so she adviced her to get a drip of glucose from recovery of weakness. After that she inject the drip of glucose and became busy in her other work. At once after receiving the glucose in her body the complainant became unconscious. The husband and mother in law of the complainant informed the opposite party to this effect but she did not bother. In the meantime the complainant became very serious so the mother in law and husband of the complainant took her at once at the G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot where she was admitted and given her emergency treatment and doctor told her that the alleged glucose may be of expiry date and if the complainant would have not received proper treatment in time she may have expired. The complainant now came to known that the opposite party is not a lady doctor and only a mid-wife and doing the illegal practice as a doctor and due to her negligent act the complainant remain admitted in G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot from 18/8/2006 to 19/8/2006. She is still under the treatment as outdoor patient as the doctor adviced her regular follow-up after 5 days. So the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental torture and pain due to wrong treatment given by the opposite party, Rs.5000/- as medical expenses, Rs.5000/- on account of nursing by the family members and Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment and interest @ 2% per month on the total amount of Rs.70,000/- with effect from 18/8/2006 till realization of the amount alongwith Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant requested the opposite party to make the payment but all in vain. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6-9-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. N.S.Dhaliwal Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form because false and baseless story has been given in the complaint. The opposite party never treated the complainant. Rather the complainant's father in law namely Gursewak Singh borrowed the money from the husband of the opposite party on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 16/7/2004 and 21/11/2003 and the husband of the opposite party was demanding the said loan amount from the said Gursewak Singh but just to put pressure upon the husband of the opposite party the complainant filed this false complaint and falsely dragged the opposite party into this false litigation. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party sos the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits the opposite party submitted that this complaint is false and the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The opposite party is not alleging herself to be a doctor nor she is practicing as doctor. The opposite party is only doing the work of Trained Dai and she never medically treated the complainant or any other person. Rather she is doing the work as Mid-wife and in normal cases she used to help in delivery cases and in any complication she used to refer the said patient to Government hospitals. The complainant only filed this complaint only to put pressure upon the opposite party. The opposite party never applied any drip of glucose of the complainant. The whole village fully know that the opposite party is doing the work of Mid-wife and not as a doctor. No such loss has been suffered by the complainant from the hands of the opposite party. So the complaint may be dismissed with special costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of OPD slip of G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot dated 19/8/2006 Ex.C-2, copy of admission card Ex.C-3, copy of prescription slip Ex.C-4, affidavit of Baljinder Singh Ex.C-5, certified copy of FIR No. 153 dated 30/6/2006 P.S. Saddar Faridkot Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.R-1, copy of pronote Ex.R-2 and pronote Ex.R-3 and closed her evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is entitled to the recovery of Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the opposite party. The opposite party have been negligent in providing medical help to the complainant. Even the opposite party posed herself as a doctor but she is not a qualified doctor. The complainant if would not have been quired by G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot then she might have not survived. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the opposite party have not treated the complainant in any manner. The opposite party is working as mid-wife and she helps people and pregnant women at the time of delivery of child. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. <br /> 10. The complainant in her affidavit Ex.C-1 have substantiated her pleadings with regard to treatment of the complainant due to her leg pain and weakness by applying glucose drip to the complainant on 18/8/2006. As per her affidavit the opposite party was representing herself as a doctor. So complainant had to go to her for taking treatment for severe leg pain. As per her affidavit when glucose was injected she became unconscious. Husband and mother in law of the complainant informed the opposite party to this fact the opposite party did not bother about this when complainant became very serious mother in law and husband of the complainant took her to G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. She was admitted there. She was given emergency treatment. The doctor told husband of the complainant that glucose may be of expiry date and if the complainant would not have been brought in the hospital then she might have expired. The complainant thereafter came to know that the opposite party is not a trained/qualified doctor. <br /> 11. The prescription slip Ex.C-2 makes out that complainant Gurbinder Kaur was admitted in the hospital on 18/8/2006. She was discharged on 19/8/2006, thereafter she was given treatment for about 5 days, which is also evident from the prescription slip Ex.C-4. The averments of the complainant have been substantiated by affidavit of Baljinder Singh Ex.C-5. <br /> 12. From the perusal of the FIR Ex.C-6 dated 30/6/2006 recorded at Serial No. 153 dated 30/6/2006 in P.S. Saddar Faridkot it is made out that Gurjant Singh have nominated Pishora Singh, Kulwinder Kaur and Sarbjit Kaur as accused persons under Section 312, 313, 315, 201 and 120-B IPC. In this FIR Gurjant Singh has alleged that Kulwinder Kaur is practicing as a doctor. The above noted accused persons have aborted illegally pregnancy of Sarbjit Kaur.<br /> 13. In such like circumstances affidavit Ex.R-1 of Kulwinder Kaur to the effect that the complainant has leveled false allegations due to the fact that complainant's father in law Gursewak Singh borrowed certain amount from husband of the opposite party on 16/7/2007 and 21/11/2003 is of no help to the opposite party. The money transaction through the negotiable instruments i.e. pronote Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 in between Gurjant Singh and Pishore Singh is different matter. Pishore Singh could file a recovery suit on the basis of the above noted promissory notes. However the matter in dispute is not connected with these promissory notes. <br /> 14. Opposite party Kulwinder Kaur herself has pleaded that she is working mid-wife. She has not produced any such license in the Forum in the countryside the layman are attracted nu such like persons for treatment. Generally they do not disclose their qualifications. The opposite party had been claiming herself to be a doctor but complainant came to know later on that she is not a qualified doctor. The opposite party have applied drip to the complainant in negligent manner which made health of the complainant to be very serious. She had to get treatment from G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. <br /> 15. In such like circumstances the service of the opposite party are held to be deficient. There is mal trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Complainant had suffered mentally and physically from the hands of the opposite party. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant alongwith costs of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party shall have pay the aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the decision till the realization of the amount. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 8/8/2007