ORDER

Date of order:   05-02-2018

S.K. Sinha, President       

                   The impugned order directs the appellant-Doctor to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs) only to the complainant as also Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony, medical expenditures within two months from the date of the order. The complainant is to the effect that the daughter in law of the complainant delivered a son in the clinic of Dr. Om Prakash who suggested that the child may suffer Jaundice as such suggested that the child may be admitted in the clinic of Dr. Satya Bardhan a child specialist. The baby was kept in ICU on 02-11-2012. In the evening the baby was in normal condition as such the complainant and his family members went back from clinic of the appellant. Compounder did not allow to see the baby on 04-11-2012 when again the visited the clinic but compounder did not allow, stating that Doctro has asked that not to see the baby who is in ICU for next 72 hours. The complainant when raised objection then the compounder told that the baby had died on 03-11-2012. The complainant informed the police alleging carelessness and deficiency in service of the appellant. The complainant claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation including expenditure etc. The appellant (O.P) filed reply denying all the allegations.

2.                Appellant filed evidence including the copy of the FIR, Final form, slips of the appellant and examined three witness. Appellant also examined the compounders as evidence in support of his case.

3.                The District Forum considering the evidence of the witness of the complainant and the appellant held negligence and deficiency in service, since the appellant did not advise to take the baby to Purnea for better treatment. The impugned order was as such passed.

4.                 Written notes of arguments filed on behalf of the parties.

5.                 We have considered the case, material on the record as also the impugned order. Admittedly as observed by the District Forum that no any medical prescription or detail has been filed by either of the parties. We find that no specific allegation of medical negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The evidence on record does not support any negligence. The District Forum held medical negligence and deficiency in service, merely since the appellant did not refer the baby to a different clinic at Purnea as alleged. We do not find any evidence that complainant requested to get baby discharged from the clinic of the appellant. The decision to refer patient to another clinic/Hospital depends upon its necessity and request if any of patient or attendant. The District Forum did not consider the matter in correct perspective. The impugned order cannot be sustained in law for want of appropriate evidence to support the findings of impugned order. It is thus, set aside.

6.                 In the result, appeal stands allowed.

 Renu Sinha                        Upendra Jha                                   S.K. Sinha                                                               

 Member (F)                        Member (M)                                    President