ASHOK KUMAR ANEJA vs HARISH KOHLI

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 17.1.2003 passed by District Forum, Dehradun whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged the complaint with the District Forum, Dehradun on 4.5.1998 and the subject of the complainant was mentioned that the medical certificate, discharge slip, X-ray report, the bill and compensation be given. In the body of the complaint, he alleged that the complainant met with an accident on 17.10.1997. He was admitted in the hospital of the opposite party on 25.10.1997. THEre was an operation and the complainant was admitted in the nursing home of the opposite party for 20 days. On discharge, when the complainant wanted the discharge slip, medical certificate, X-ray report and receipt of the payment of Rs. 10,000/-, firstly Dr. Kohli, opposite party told to give on this or that date, but ultimately refused. THE complainant gave an application to the C.M.O. THE opposite party sent a compounder at the residence of the complainant and threatened. Due to this accident the complainant is unable to work from his left hand. THE doctor is duty bound to hand-over the papers. THE opposite party has violated the rules. THErefore, his licence should be cancelled. THE claimant claimed papers, compensation and also cancellation of the practice certificate of the opposite party. We have gone through the entire complaint and there is not even a single word that there was any deficiency in service of the opposite party in the treatment, operation or nursing of the complainant. He has alleged disability due to this accident and not due to any deficiency in service of the opposite party. He has alleged that : "Is durghatna ke karan main bain hath se karya karne va apna tatha apne parivar ka jeevikoparjan karne main asmarth han". He blamed the accident and not the doctor for disability, if any. Therefore, there is no question of any compensation for deficiency in service. Now, the question is whether the Forum or this Commission has got jurisdiction to cancel or to get cancelled the medical practice licence of the opposite party. Naturally, there is no such jurisdiction or power with the Forum or the Commission.

The third question is of directing the opposite party to give the papers to the appellant. Negligence, or deficiency in service shall be only when the opposite party has failed in any duty or obligation on him. The claimant did not show any rule, regulation, authority under which there was any duty or obligation of the opposite party to give papers to the appellant. Not only this, the learned Forum has also referred the ruling of the National Commission which specifically shows that there is no such obligation of the doctor to furnish documents. According to the opposite party, he has already given necessary papers, but, what the complainant wants is that to give him a false receipt of payment which has never been made by him, be given so that he can get compensation from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. There is no evidence of any payment of Rs. 10,000/-. According to the doctor, it was to be paid by some trust. The claimant has alleged that he has paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and he has remained in the nursing home for 22 days. In our view, such an amount can never be the actual fee of operation, nursing or stay in the nursing home for 22 days. The learned Forum has given a very detailed finding on these facts. We do not want to repeat the same.

THE Forum or the Commission cannot be an instrument to enrich the claimant by directing the opposite party to issue a false receipt so that the complainant may get handsome compensation from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. This is all mis-use of legal machinery. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant could not engage a lawyer in the District Forum and he has himself argued the case there. Therefore, there are various mistakes and legal infirmities in the complaint before the Forum. It can be true and such infirmities and mistakes are to be ignored because the proceedings like this are summary proceedings but here in the appeal he has engaged not only one lawyer but two or three lawyers were standing on his side. But, still there is nothing in the grounds of appeal which may go to show that any definite amount has been claimed for any deficiency in service of the doctor as doctor. Merely by telling that he be awarded compensation but without making it clear for what, no compensation can be granted. The complainant did not produce any evidence in appeal as well whether or what is the deficiency in service of the doctor in medical, operational or treatment side. He did not produce any expert evidence that there has been any disability in the hand due to any operation and medical treatment. He did not even specifically tell in any affidavit or evidence that what deficiency in service was there in the treatment of the patient.

AS said above, the case in the Forum as well as this appeal is misuse of legal proceedings and the complaint was filed with an illegal motive to get Furzi receipts of payment which has never been made. The petition and the appeal is to be dismissed. It is pertinent to note here that except the bald affidavit of the complainant, there is no evidence at all to show any payment to the doctor. Therefore, there is no question of issue of any receipts. The appeal is to be dismissed. But looking to the pathetic condition of the complainant that he is a poor man and was even unable to pay expenses of the treatment etc. and that was promised by some charitable institution to be paid, it is sufficient that the complainant is not being saddled with any cost much less a punitive cost. The judgment passed by the District Forum is very detailed and comprehensive order. On the basis of evidence and law, it does not call for any interference by this Commission. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. But looking to the pathetic condition of the complainant that he is a poor man and was even unable to pay expenses of the treatment etc. and that was promised by some charitable institution to be paid, it is sufficient that the complainant is not being saddled with any cost much less a punitive cost. Costs easy. Appeal dismissed.