Dr. Gulshan vs Bhim Singh

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member

Heard Mr. Rishabh Pant, Advocate for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record.

Above revision petition has been filed from the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan dated 23.11.2022, passed in FA/1013/2019, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner/opposite party was dismissed and cross appeal filed by the respondent/complainant was accepted.

As per report of the Registry, the revision petition has been filed with a delay of 38 days, for which the petitioner has filed IA/4224/2023 for condoning the delay. Subject to objection by the respondent, IA/4224/2023 is allowed and delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

Bhim Singh filed consumer complaint No.330 of 2012 with the District Forum for directing the opposite parties to (a) compensate the complainant for the medical expenses of Rs.430/-; (b) pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for mental stress and physical suffering with interest @ 15% p.a.; (c) pay Rs.11000/- as litigation cost; and (g) grant any other relief to the complainant as the Forum deems fit.

The case of the complainant is that on 11.04.2011 at 5.00 pm complainant, alongwith his mother and other family members visited the clinic of the opposite party as he was having high fever. The opposite party injected the complainant and gave certain medicines, for which he charged fee of Rs.430/-. After taking the injection, the condition of the complainant started deteriorating. The complainant was again taken to the hospital of the opposite party, who told that this was due to reaction of the injection and gave him tablet Avil to reduce the reaction of the injection. The complainant went back to the home but his condition worsened and he was admitted in Jindal Nursing Home, Bharatpur for treatment. The Doctors said that the condition of the patient deteriorated as the injection was given carelessly without conducting any medical test of the patient. The patient remained admit for five days but his condition did not improve and he was taken to Higher Center Apex Hospital, Jaipur where he was treated from 16.04.2011 to 30.04.2011. The complainant spent Rs.4 lakhs for his treatment. When the complainant enquired about the medical knowledge of the opposite party, it was revealed that he had advertised himself as an allopathic Doctor and had opened a private clinic without licence. The complainant lodged an FIR with Police Station Bayana. The complainant also filed Consumer Complaint No.330/2012 with the District Forum, Bharatpur.

The opposite party contested the complaint by filing the written statement stating that the complainant had never visited the clinic of the opposite party nor any treatment was given by him to the complainant. The entire story of treatment of the complainant by the opposite party is false and fabricated. The complainant has filed a false case against the opposite party due to political reasons as the opposite party did not vote to the relative of the complainant, namely, Bahadur Singh. The complainant and Bahadur Singh also filed a false case against the opposite party under the provisions of Scheduled Caste Tribes Atrocities Act, wherein final report has been submitted by the police in favour of the opposite party. The complaint is baseless and liable to be dismissed.

The District Commission, vide order dated 05.09.2019 partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay of Rs.1 lakh for negligence of the opposite party with interest @ 9% p.a. alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/-.

Aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2019, the opposite party preferred First Appeal No.1013 of 2019 with the State Commission. The complainant also preferred First Appeal No.1034 of 2019 seeking enhancement of compensation. The State Commission, vide common order dated 23.11.2022 dismissed the appeal of the opposite party and allowed the appeal of the complainant with the direction indicated hereinabove. Hence the present revision petition has been filed by the opposite party.

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and carefully examined the record. Petitioners contended that the consumer complaint was not maintainable with the Consumer Commission and both the Fora below have wrongly exercised the jurisdiction not vested in them. The impugned orders are based on conjectures and surmises without there being any evidence of medical negligence of the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.), MS (Ortho) vs. s. Ramanujam (2009) 7 SCC 130.

It is the case of the petitioner that he had never treated the complainant and the entire story of treatment is false. In this regard, the complainant filed the treatment slip dated 11.04.2011 alongwith the complaint before the District Commission, wherein allopathic medicines have been prescribed by the petitioner. During investigation, the investigation officer collected the treatment slips of other patients and found that the petitioner had prescribed allopathic medicines to other patients also. From the treatment record of Jindal Nursing Home, it is clear that on 11.04.2011 allopathic medicines were prescribed to the complainant and the condition of the patient was deteriorated due to the injection given by the petitioner. Regarding allegation of the petitioner that a false case has been filed against him, it is impossible that the complainant would harm himself to file a false case against the petitioner. As far as judgment in C.P. Sreekumar (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts as in that case the complainant failed to prove the medical negligence. However, in the present case, the medical negligence on the part of the petitioner is established. As far as question of jurisdiction is concerned, it is proved that the petitioner gave allopathic treatment to the complainant. The relation of a patient and the Doctor is a relation of a consumer and the service provider under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant was justified in invoking the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission. There is concurrent finding of the Fora below regarding medical negligence of the petitioner. Findings of fact were based upon evidence investigation by the police authorities and do not suffer from any illegality. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. We do not see any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders passed. Nor do we see any such material irregularity or element of perversity which may be said to have vitiated the verdict or resulted in miscarriage of justice. We see no reason to take a different view in the matter or to interfere in the concurrent findings.

ORDER

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.