KRISHNA KUMAR vs SUBHASH BANSAL

THE case of the appellant in this case before the D.F. was that on 28.8.1998 (29.8.1998) the appellant had consulted and hired the services of Dr. Subhash Bansal at his hospital known as "Bansal Hospital", Dhan Mandi, Sadulshahar, Distt. Sriganganagar for treatment of his pregnant wife Smt. Sharda, that in order to perform D.N.C. on the ailing lady, Dr. Bansal had charged Rs. 3,000/- from him and administered certain medicines to the patient; that despite demands the doctor neither issued the prescription slip to the appellant nor informed him of the medicines administered to his wife, that the condition of the patient deteriorated and in the evening of the following day Dr. Bansal referred the patient to City Hospital at Sriganganagar. Dr. Shambu Nath Gupta, respondent No. 2 carried on certain tests with regard to the blood group of the patient and told the appellant that the patient shall have to be operated upon and the baby from her womb be taken out, on such advice of Dr. Shambu Nath Gupta the appellant took his wife to Dr. I.K. Jain, Sriganganagar who operated upon the wife of the appellant and took out a dead child from her womb. On such facts it was alleged that respondent No. 1 had rendered deficient services to the appellant inasmuch as that he did not issue even the prescription slip and did not inform the appellant of the medicines prescribed for and administered to his wife which resulted in deteriorating the condition of the patient and causing death of the child in her womb.

THE respondent No. 1, in the reply filed by him, denied the allegations made against him in the complaint. No allegations regarding negligence on the part of Dr. Shambu Nath Gupta, respondent No. 2 were made and no relief against him had been asked for. After having considered the reply filed by respondent No. 1 the D.F. concluded that it was not proved that the appellant had hired the services of the said respondent for consideration. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed. Before us the learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the facts of the case were required to be appreciated in the background wherefrom the patient came to the doctor and the doctor charged not only the fees but also the cost/price of the medicines from her but does not issue any receipt to her. It was submitted that it was a normal feature in the treatment given by medical professionals to the patients coming from rural background. The learned Counsel highlighted the fact that despite request made by the appellant in the complaint for calling for the relevant record of the doctor, no such record was called for. It was submitted that if such record would have been called, it could have disclosed to the D.F. the true state of affairs of the patient, treated by respondent No. 1 at his nursing home at a township.

We have considered the submissions made before us. The appellant had stated the above facts not only in the complaint but also in his affidavit supporting the complaint. The above facts were further supported in their affidavits by Shri Patel Ram, driver of the jeep who had charged Rs. 700/- from the appellant for taking his wife to the hospital of respondent No. 1. Then Devi Lal, a person from the appellant's own village had stated in his affidavit that he had visited the hospital of respondent No. 1 in order to know the welfare of the wife of the appellant. The sworn testimony of these witnesses supported the version of the appellant and made out a case for calling for the record of respondent No. 1 in respect of the treatment given by him in his hospital. Before coming to the final conclusion the D.F. should have, therefore, called for the relevant record like patient's register, admission. register of patients, prescription register, bed head ticket, etc. from the possession of respondent No. 1.

IN view of the above we are of the opinion that the present case must further be enquired into by the D.F. by calling the record, as mentioned above, from the possession of respondent No. 1. IN case respondent No. 1 does not himself produce the desired record, the D.F. may issue a commissioner to collect such record from his hospital. The D.F. shall then rehear the parties and decide the complaint afresh according to law within a period of next 3 months after the appearance of the parties before it on 8.8.2003. The record of the Forum be returned forthwith. Since no relief was claimed by the appellant as against respondent No. 2, the impugned order as is in favour of respondent No. 2 is not interfered with. Appeal allowed.