RANJIT SINGH BUTTAR vs Sewa Singh

VIDE this order two appeals (Nos. 342 and 370 of 1998) are being disposed of arising out of the same order of District Forum, Amritsar dated March 19, 1998. Appeal No. 370 of 1998 has been filed by the complainant Sewa Singh as his complaint filed against the opposite party, Dr. Ranjit Singh Buttar, was dismissed whereas the other Appeal No. 342 of 1998 has been filed by Dr. Buttar for quashing of observations of the District Forum regarding his conduct, in the matter of treating private patients at private nursing home on charging fees while in Government service. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

THE complainant''s case is in two phases. First phase related to the treatment given to his son Kulbir Singh, aged about 11 months for diarrhea from October 6, 1997 to October 9, 1997 and in the second phase he gave treatment on November 23, 1997 at about 9.30 p.m. whereas the child died during the night. On October 6, 1997 at about 11 a.m. Kulbir Singh was brought to the Primary Health Centre, Verka where Dr. Ranjit Singh Buttar was working as Medical Officer (in Government service). After examining Kulbir Singh and prescribing certain medicines while issuing a prescription slip he advised admission of the patient to his Nursing Home known as Ranbir Nursing Home. It was accordingly done. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was charged by Dr. Buttar from the complainant in providing treatment. Since there was some relief to the patient that he was discharged on October 9, 1997. Subsequently on November 23, 1997 there was an acute problem with the child who was again brought to the opposite party and likewise the child was again admitted in the Nursing Home aforesaid and was charged Rs. 300/- as room rent. Some treatment was given. When the condition was deteriorating a call was given to the doctor, but he did not come. On the telephone instructions were given to continue with I.V. fluids. THE child died as stated above. Thus alleging negligence on the part of Dr. Buttar in the matter of giving treatment ultimately resulting in the death of the child, Sewa Singh approached the District Forum with the complaint claiming compensation. THE opposite party Dr. Buttar submitted his version primarily admitting that Kulbir Singh was brought to the Primary Health Centre and he had examined him and given the treatment. All other allegations of examining and giving treatment to the child by him were denied. He had no connection with Ranbir Nursing Home, which was owned by Raghbir Singh and Chanan Singh. Dr. Buttar is son-in-law of Raghbir Singh. Both the owners of the Nursing Home are not the doctors. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. THE District Forum on perusal of the evidence came to the conclusion that no negligence on the part of Dr. Buttar was established either in the matter of making diagnosis or giving treatment. Further, the complainant had failed to establish that the death was on account of negligent act of the opposite party. Thus the complaint was dismissed. However, observations were made against the conduct of Dr. Ranjit Singh Buttar, opposite party, who being in Government service was doing private practice. It was further observed that he was required to be thrown out at a distance from service for the public good so that killing of patient may not continue in future. We have heard Counsel for the parties. Alongwith Appeal No. 370 of 1998 filed by the complainant, an application for condoning delay in filing the same was filed supported by affidavit of the complainant. It is mentioned therein that the certified copy of the impugned order showed the date of delivery as March 30, 1998 and the limitation for filing appeal expired on May 1, 1998, which happened to be a holiday. Thus after the holidays appeal was filed on May 4, 1998. In this manner 4 days'' delay in filing the appeal was sought to be condoned. We have verified that there were public holidays on 1st, 2nd and 3rd May, 1998. However, we are of the opinion that the limitation of filing appeal expired on April 30, 1998, which was the last date for filing the appeal. Affidavit of the complainant Sewa Singh was got attested from Oath Commissioner, Chandigarh on April 27, 1998. On that day if appeal had been filed it had been well within the time of limitation. The appeal papers purport to have been prepared on April 29, 1998, but factually after the holidays the appeal was filed on May 4, 1998. The delay of one day in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned as fault appears to be of the Counsel for the appellant in not filing the appeal either on April 29, 1998 or April, 30, 1998 and the litigant should not suffer for the negligent act of his Counsel. Hence delay is condoned.

On merits we find no infirmity with the decision of the District Forum as far as making diagnosis and giving treatment to the patient by the opposite party, Dr. Ranjit Singh is concerned. The very fact that the patient was discharged on October 9, 1997 from the Nursing Home after admission on October 6, 1997 would indicate that the disease of diarrhea had been controlled. As far as the death of Kulbir Singh on November 23, 1997 is concerned, there is no documentary evidence to establish the nature of treatment prescribed by Dr. Buttar or the cause of death. No post-mortem on the dead body of Kulbir Singh was got conducted to know the actual cause of death. It is only the affidavit of the complainant to the effect that Kulbir Singh had suffered diarrhea again that he was brought to the opposite party. That is not considered enough to prove negligence on the part of the opposite party either in the matter of giving treatment ultimately resulting in death. No medical expert was produced by the complainant that the nature of treatment of giving I.V. Fluid was not appropriate treatment for the alleged disease of diarrhea. It is not always that the treatment promptly cures the disease. The argument of learned Counsel for the complainant that since death had occurred, negligence on the part of the opposite party should be presumed cannot be accepted. Thus we find no force in the appeal filed by the complainant. The same is dismissed.

TAKING up the appeal of Dr. Buttar, learned Counsel has argued that when the complaint was dismissed, it was not expected of the Forum to make any comment on the conduct of the opposite party. Furthermore, it has been argued that there is no cogent evidence produced by the complainant that in fact, Dr. Buttar had treated the patient, ultimately resulting in his death. This contention as such cannot be accepted. It is not disputed that Dr. Buttar is in Government service drawing salary from the State Exchequer. Ex. R4 is the prescription slip prepared by Dr. Buttar on October 6, 1997 prescribing five of the medicines. As is the admitted case this prescription slip was prepared by Dr. Buttar when in the Primary Health Centre, Verka Kulbir Singh patient was brought. Ex. R3 is another prescription slip prepared on October 6, 1997, Dr. Buttar repeated the five medicines as mentioned in Ex. R4 and added two more. As per stand of the complainant this prescription slip was prepared after admission of Kulbir Singh in the Ranbir Nursing Home, whereas according to Dr. Buttar, it was prepared of course on the same day subsequently but at the instance of the complainant, who had left the original prescription slip at the chemist shop at the time of making purchases of medicines. This stand of Dr. Buttar cannot be accepted for the simple reason that two more medicines were prescribed therein and it supports the case of the complainant that by that time Kulbir Singh had been admitted in the Nursing Home referred to above. It would show that even after the patient had been admitted in the private nursing home it was Dr. Buttar, who was attending on him. That being established, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant that Dr. Buttar had charged him fees as stated. That being the position, there is full justification for the District Forum to record such findings in the impugned order while disposing of the case and we affirm the same. Since for the subsequent admission and ultimate death of Kulbir Singh in the Nursing Home except the statement of complainant, there is no other evidence to prove negligence on the part of the Doctor Buttar in the absence of any medical expert evidence, though we are of the opinion that it was Mr. Buttar who treated Kulbir Singh on February 23, 1997 while he was admitted in the Ranbir Nursing Home and of course charging of fees, it would amount to misconduct on his part. It is up to the State Government, if so advised, to take action against Dr. Buttar on the administrative side. The appeal filed by Dr. Buttar is, therefore, also dismissed. Appeals dismissed.