FA.No.289/2007 against CC.No.12/2006 District Consumer Forum, Chittoor. 

Between:

Shaik Khadar Sharif, S/o.Shaik Akbar Sharif,

Aged about 19 years,

R/o.H.No.9-103, Janda Street, Karvetinagar,

Chittoor District.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

M/s.Bone Setting Hospital,

Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri S.Subramanyam Raju,

S/o.Sri S.Markandeya Raju,

Rachapalem Post, Puttur Mandal,

Chittoor District.

…Respondent/Opp.Party.

Counsel for the Appellant         : Mr.M.Ramgopal Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondent     : M/s.M.L.Nelima.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT.

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he was a student of Government Degree college at Karvetinagar of Chittoor District.  While so, on 04.11.2005 while he was doing physical exercises he accidentally fell and sustained a fracture of the right fore hand which resulted in dislocation of the bones.  On that he went to the respondent’s hospital under the name Bone Setting Hospital at Puttur.  He paid Rs.10/- towards registration fee wherein the respondent along with his staff set right the bones and stitched the wound by their traditional methods without administering any anaesthesia.  He prescribed some medicines and asked him to take bed rest.  On the same day, he was discharged.  Later on 06.11.2005 when he experienced severe pain, he went to another doctor who informed that the bandage was not properly applied, the wound became septic and the affected area of the hand was seriously damaged.  He was forced to take treatment in S.V.R.R.Hospital, Tirupati where his hand was amputated and therefore, he gave a registered notice followed by the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum and costs.

3.         The respondent resisted the case.  He denied that he was the Proprietor of Bone Setting Hospital, nor he had any thing to do with the said hospital.  He never treated the complainant nor taken Rs.10/- towards registration fee.  He was in no way responsible for the disability caused to the complainant.  Therefore, he prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit besides that of his father, colleague and neighbour and got Exs.A.1 to A.13 marked.  Refuting their evidence, the respondent filed his own affidavit besides that of another doctor and the Panchayat Secretary of the village. 

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there was no proof that the opposite party was the proprietor of Bone Setting Hospital and that he treated the complainant.  There are complicated questions of fact and law and the Civil Court could be the proper Forum where he could agitate these questions and so holding, it ultimately dismissed the complaint.

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in its correct perspective.  It ought to have allowed the complaint and awarded compensation.

7.         The point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant had taken treatment from the respondent resulting in disability of his right fore hand and is entitled to compensation?

8.         At the outset, we may state that the complainant except asserting that he went to the respondent’s Bone Setting Hospital where S.Subramanyam Raju, R.1 had given the treatment, no evidence whatsoever was filed. In fact he relied on Ex.A.1, the brochure, Ex.A.2, receipt, and Ex.A.3, prescription issued by the respondent.  A perusal of Ex.A.1 brochure discloses that the proprietor is one Sri S.Subba Raju.  The name of the respondent was not mentioned.  There is no evidence to prove that the respondent was the proprietor of Bone Setting Hospital.  We may also add that Ex.A.2 receipt was not signed by any of the doctors nor the name of the hospital was mentioned.

9.         We may reiterate and state that unless the complainant proves that Subramanyam Raju against whom the complaint was filed has anything to do with the Bone Setting Hospital, the complaint cannot lie against him.  When there is no evidence to show that it belongs to one S.Subramanyam Raju against whom he filed complaint we may not be able to hold that S.Subramanyam Raju was the proprietor of the hospital   

10.       The respondent filed affidavit evidence of Medical Practitioner, Dr.K.Sreeramulu (R.W.2), who asserted that the respondent has nothing to do with the Bone Setting Hospital and in fact such an hospital was not in existence there.  Added to that the Secretary of Rachapalem village, K.Prasad (R.W.3) corroborating version of R,W.2 stated that S.Subramanyam Raju has nothing to do with the said hospital.  Unless and until the fact that Subramanyam Raju was a medical practitioner and in fact he treated the complainant was proved, rest of the discussion would be unnecessary.  None of the documents filed by the complainant discloses that Subramanyam Raju, the respondent had treated the complainant in Bone Setting Hospital.  He might have visited some Ayurvedic clinic by name Bone Setting Hospital, where he was not treated properly, and that resulted in amputation of his right fore hand.  We reiterate that unless he proves that S.Subramanyam Raju, the respondent herein, treated him no liability could be fastened against him.  We agree with the finding of the District Forum in this regard and opine that the complainant could not prove that the respondent treated him resulting in amputation of his hand.  There is undoubtedly negligence on the part of some Ayurvedic doctor who treated him earlier supported by the affidavit evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and Ex.A.8 physically handicap certificate. Without any evidence whatsoever, we may not be able to award any compensation against the respondent.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

11.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  However, without costs.

PRESIDENT                     LADY MEMBER

                                           Dt:19.01.2009.