BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
Present: Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., President.
Smt.U. Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.LL.B., P.G.D.C.P.L.,
Male Member.
Friday, the 16th day of January, 2009
CC.No.4 /2008
Between:
Ayuti Tippanna S/o Narsappa,
Aged about 35 years, Occu:Labour,
R/o Gunjoti Village,
Nayalkal Mandal, Medak District.
… Complainant
And
1. Mohd Shabeer Khan S/o Mohd Akbar Khan,
Aged about 26 years, Occu:RMP Doctor.
2. Mohd.Akbar Khan, Father of
Mohd.Shabeer Khan, aged about 52 years,
Occu:Compounder,
Both R/o Hadnoor village of Nyalkal Mandal
Medak District.
… Opposite parties.
This complaint came up for final hearing before us on 31.12.2008 in the presence of Sri G.Subash Chander Advocate for the complainant , Sri C.Narsing Raj and Sri N.Shiva Kumar, Advocates for opposite parties No.1 and 2, upon hearing the arguments, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day , this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments:
1. The complainant is a daily laborer. On 19.8.2006 the complainant was taken by his wife Smt.Susheelamma to the private clinic of the opposite
-2-
parties as the complainant was suffering from stomach ache and testicle pain. After due examination the opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 administered two injections and two pills to the complainant. Hardly 10 minutes there after there was reaction of the medicines and the complainant developed blisters all over his body. When Susheelamma questioned the opposite parties about the same they replied that they have administered high dose injection and there was no need to worry. On such assurance she has taken the complainant to their house. As the stomach ache and testicles pain did not subside and as the complainant badly suffered due to re action, the complainant was immediately taken to the government head quarters hospital, Bidar and admitted him in the hospital where he was treated. There after the doctors in the Bidar hospital referred the case to Osmaina General hospital, Hyderabad where the complainant was admitted with M.L.C.No.40490 under the supervision of Dr.Ram Mohan Rao M.S. of unit VI and Dr.Laxmi assistant professor treated the complainant. On the complaint of the complainant PS Hadnoor registered a case on 15.9.2006 under Cr.No.68/06 and investigated and now the said case is pending before Magistrate court, Zaheerabad for the offences punishable U/S 269 & 337 IPC. Police investigation revealed that opposite party No.1 is an RMP doctor possessing RMP certificate No.2458, dt.2.8.2004 from Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vaidyula Sankshema Sangam having its head office at Vijayawada vide registered No.105/03 and he along with his father, opposite party No.2 have been practicing is their house from the date of the said RMP certificate. The opposite parties further confessed that they have given cyclomol injection on his buttock and palobin injection to another buttock for stomach pain and also given one Maftal span for stomach pain and another capsule which are not relevant to the decease of the complainant as per the opinion of the doctors at Osmania General hospital, Hyderabad. The complainant was admitted in the said hospital vide IP.No.33017 in ward No.III vide MLC.No.40490 and discharged after saving the life of the complainant. Even after the discharge the complainant is still unable to do hard work due to his ill health of abdomen and below abdomen areas. Due to negligent treatment of opposite parties the complainant became disabled and his family is put to starvation as the complainant alone is the earning member in the family. The complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/- or more for the
-3-
treatment taken by him in the hospitals. Before village elders the opposite parties assured to pay compensation to the complainant for the loss incurred by him but inspite of repeated request they have not paid. Therefore having no other alternative the complainant approached this forum to grant compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the opposite parties with interest at 18% p.a. Cause of action arose on 16.12.2007 on which date the complainant approached the opposite parties for payment of compensation and when they refused to pay. Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite parties resisted by the complainant by filing a common counter to the following effect:-
The complaint is not maintainable. Opposite party No.2, who is father of opposite party No.1, has been working in the veterinary department and is nothing to do with the affairs of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is Rural Medical Practitioner and he gives only first aid but not any treatment, that too by giving injections etc. The opposite parties are not aware of the occupation of the complainant. They are not aware about the complainant suffering from stomach ache and testicle pain on 19.8.2006. The opposite parties deny the allegations that the complainant was brought by his wife to the clinic of the opposite parties and that the opposite parties administered two injection and two pills and 10 minutes there after there was reaction and that the opposite parties assured that nothing whould happen and there is no worry as high dose of injection was given. The complainant was never brought by his wife to the clinic of the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 never administered any injection as alleged. The opposite parties are also not aware of the complainant joining in the government hospital, Bidar for treatment and there after taking treatment in the Osmania general hospital as in patient. The complainant and his family members brought pressure and influence on the SHO, Hadnoor and got booked a false case against opposite party No.1. SHO has taken the RMP certificate of opposite party No.1 for verification. Opposite party No.1 denies that they confessed before the investigating officer that they administered Cyclomal injection for stomach pain on his buttock and palobin
-4-
injection on the other buttock and administered maftal span tablet for stomach pain and becosule tablet. Opposite party No.1 never gave any such treatment to the complainant. The opposite parties further deny that due to their negligent treatment the complainant became disabled and his family is put to starvation and that they incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/-. The opposite parties further deny that before village elders the opposite parties assured to pay Rs.2,00,000/- compensation to the complainant but failed to pay in spite of repeated requests. No cause of action arose on 16.12.2007 as alleged. The complaint is filed due to political conflicts. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.
3. To substantiate the rival contentions the complainant testified himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A.5. Opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 testified themselves as RWs.1 and 2. No documents are marked on their behalf. Written arguments of the complainant and the opposite parties are filed. Both sides advocates advanced oral arguments also. Perused the record.
4. The point for consideration is whether the complainant has proved that he has taken medical treatment from the opposite parties and whether due to negligent treatment the complainant became disabled and therefore he is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the opposite parties ?
5. Point:
The case of the complainant is that on 19.8.2006 he suffered from stomach ache and testicle pain and his wife has taken him to the clinic of the opposite parties and the opposite parties gave two injections and two tablets due to which there was reaction within 10 minutes and later the complainant has taken treatment in the government head quarters hospital, Bidar and the Osmaina general hospital, Hyderabad and the complainant assured before village elders to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as the complainant became disabled due to negligent treatment given by the opposite parties but failed to pay. But the opposite parties denied to have treated the complainant at all. Their case is that they have
-5-
never seen the complainant and when criminal case was filed against them they enquired in the village as to who Tippanna (complainant) is and came to know
through villagers like Baswaraj and Moulana that Tippanna was taking treatment in Osmania general hospital, Hyderabad therefore the opposite parties along with the above said two persons went to the Osmania hospital where Baswaraj and Moulana showed the complainant and from then on wards only the complainant is known to them.
6. Ex.A1 is copy of FIR. Ex.A2 is copy of charge sheet filed by police in the Magistrate court. Ex.A3 is letter of reference of Bidar doctor to duty surgeon of Osmania general hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A4 is discharge report given by Osmania general hospital, Hyderabad.Ex.A5 is bunch of medical bills. This is the entire documentary evidence produced by the complainant.
7. When the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties negligently gave him injections and tablets which are not relevant to his disease and there by there was reaction to him he became disabled and when the opposite parties case is total denial, it is for the complainant to prove his case. Except the complainant testifying himself as PW.1, he has not produced any other evidence in support of his contentions. Even though his case is that his wife Susheelamma taken him to the private clinic of opposite parties No.1 and 2, the said Susheelmma is not examined as a witness. His own document Ex.A2 which is copy of charge sheet, shows in column No.14(4) in the first page that Sri Manjle Miyan is the eye witness and he is the person who has brought the complainant to the clinic of the opposite parties. The complaint or the affidavit of the complainant filed in lieu of his examination in chief are silent about this Sri Manjle Miyan. Even the evidence affidavit of this person is not filed by the complainant nor he is produced for cross examination by the opposite parties.
8. The contentions of the complainant’s advocate is that opposite party No.1 admitted in his evidence that he went to Osmania general hospital and saw the complainant there. According to him if really opposite party No.1 has not given
-6-
injections and treatment to the complainant what was his interest to go to Osmania hospital, Hyderabad and see the complainant there. For this the learned counsel for
the opposite parties has stated that there is no admission of giving treatment. He referred to the relevant portion in the cross examination of RW.1 (opposite party No.1) which is as follows:-
“When criminal case was filed against me I enquired in the village as to who Tippanna is because I never saw him. Baswaraj of our village and another person Moulana informed me that Tipanna was taking treatment in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Therefore I, my father, along with the above said two persons went to Osmania Hospital where Baswaraj and Moulana showed the complainant to me and said that he is Tipanna. My village and village of the complainant are at a distance of about 3 or 4 k.meters from each other. I know the complainant from the time I saw him in Osmania hospital”.
9. A reading of the above version of RW.1 does not show that he has admitted giving injection nor there is any circumstance to draw such an inference.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that Baswaraj and Moulana are not examined as witnesses by the opposite parties therefore their version cannot be accepted. Even though non examination of the said persons by the opposite parties as witnesses on their behalf is lacuna on their side, the same cannot be taken advantage by the complainant because the complainant must stand on his own legs to prove his case and cannot bang upon the lacunae of the opposite parties. As already discussed above except the self serving version of the complainant as PW.1 there is no other evidence from his side either oral or documentary to show that the opposite parties gave injections and tablets to him and those medicines gave reaction and there by the complainant became disabled. It is therefore held that the complainant has failed to prove that he has taken medical treatment from the opposite parties and that the said treatment is negligent and there by he became disabled and therefore he is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The point is answered against the complainant.
-7-
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 16th day of January, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
