Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant’s is that the complainant No.1 fell ill and his brother went to nearby clinic of respondent No.2 who was at his residence.  He did not come but sent his compounder, petitioner herein, who gave an injection to complainant No.1.  Inspite of injection, the condition of complainant did not improve.  He was

-2-

then referred to Government Hospital and because of non-improvement, he was taken to Mission Hospital and Diagnostic Centre, Damoh from where it was found that the complainant No.1 had suffered paralytic attack.  When condition did not improve, he contacted Dr. Veerandra Kumar Chinpuriya and since, then he was under is treatment.  Complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency on party of the petitioner as well as respondent No.2.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed by the impugned order.  State Commission has directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- on the ground that the petitioner had acted beyond the scope of his authority and without being qualified, gave treatment to complainant No.1.  Petitioner was directed to pay the sum of Rs.30,000/- within a period of two months, failing which the awarded amount was to carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the order.  Costs of Rs.1,000/- were also awarded.

          Finding recorded by the State Commission is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 

-3-

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

We agree with the finding recorded by the State Commission and do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Dismissed.               

However, the direction issued by the State Commission to pay interest @ 12% p.a. is waived as the petitioner had approached this Commission at that time.  Petitioner is directed to pay the sum of Rs.30,000/- along with costs of Rs.1,000/- within a period of 8 weeks, failing which the amount awarded shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order.