Shailendra Kumar Bajpai vs Kuldeep Saxena & 2 Ors

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 1) under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 18.02.2021, wherein the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”), dismissed the Appeal and upheld the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 413/2005.

Brief facts that the Complainant Kuldeep Saxena, a labourer suffered fever and approached the clinic of Dr. S. K. Bajpai - the Opposite Party No. 1 at EWS 4/7 KDA Colony, Gangapur, Kanpur Nagar on 11.09.2004. The Opposite Party No. 1 diagnosed it as Malaria and gave injections and some medicines. The Complainant paid Rs. 50/- as his fees. The Complainant, on reaching home, within hours, few blisters developed in the body and there was difficulty in breathing and throat problem. Immediately in the night at 1’O clock, he approached Dr. S. K. Bajpai, but his clinic was closed, therefore, with the help of neighbours, he was admitted at Jagrati Nursing Home under the care of Dr. Sangeeta Singh. Thereafter, on 16.09.2004, the Complainant was referred to Tulsi Hospital- Opposite Party No. 3 for treatment. Subsequently, there was no improvement, but the Complainant’s eyesight started reducing. Therefore, he was discharged from the Opposite Party No. 3 on 25.09.2004. Thereafter, the Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Party No. 1, but he vanished from the Hospital. The Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party No. 1 has no medical degree and he was a satchel (Jholachhap) doctor. Being aggrieved by the faulty treatment and medical negligence, caused by the Opposite Party No. 1, the Complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.

The District Forum, after going through the averments of the parties, allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party No. 1 to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the Complainant with cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-.

The State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 and upheld the Order of the District Forum.

Being aggrieved, the Opposite Party No. 1 filed the instant Revision Petition.

We have heard the arguments from the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record on file inter-alia the Orders of both the fora.

The District Forum held Dr. S. K. Bajpai - Opposite Party No. 1 liable for negligence. On 11.09.2004 at 7.00 pm, the patient went to Dr. S. K. Bajpai, who gave injection and few medicines. Thereafter, the patient started getting blisters over the body and his eyesight began to reduce.  The Opposite Party No. 1 was a satchel doctor (in Hindi- Jholachhap) against whom an FIR was registered. The case was registered under Crime No. 324, 505 in the court of ACJM-1. The team of Deputy Medical Officer Dr. SV Singh and Dr.Raizada started the Campaign against such Jholachhap doctors at Gangapur, where including Dr. S. K. Bajpai, four other Jholachhap doctors were found. The newspaper, Dainik Jagran published the news with photograph of board of Dr. S.K. Bajpai mentioned as “MBBS MD”. Thus it was clear that the Complainant was treated by unqualified Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. quack. He filed written version stating that he was not a doctor and did not provide any treatment to the patient.

Similarly, before the State Commission the Appellant (Dr. S. K. Bajpai) argued that there was no evidence of any prescription and Rs. 50/- paid by the complainant to him. The State Commission while dismissing the Appeal, held the OP-1 as unqualified who gave treatment to the complainant. State Commission relied upon the affidavit filed by the Complainant and the investigation done by the District Medical Officer.

Thereafter, the Complainant took treatment at Dr. Bababsaheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and at Gurunanak Eye Centre at New Delhi. We further note that the Complainant lost his vision and the Chief Medical Officer issued him 100% disability certificate on 22.08.2007.

On the basis of the discussion above, it is proved that the Opposite Party No. 1 – Dr. S. K. Bajpai was not a qualified doctor, but a ‘Quack’. It was negligence per se and liable for the injury suffered by the Complainant, who lost his vision due to drug reaction. In our view, it was Stevens Johnson Syndrome.

The “Quacks” are the unauthorised and unqualified persons practicing medicine. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made strong observations and held liable to such Quacks. In the case of Poonam Verma Vs. Aswin Patel (AIR 1996 SC 2111), given a definition of a quack as:

“A person who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that system is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or to put it differently a charlatan.”

In  Bhavan Kumar Vs R.K.Gupta & Anr ;Civil Appeal No.8660 of 2009, 5/4/2013 the  compensation was enhanced  to 15 lakhs.

In the case Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum vs State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2009 decided on 13.4.2018 held that;

19…..xxxx…..

The persons having no recognized and approved qualifications, having little knowledge about the indigenous medicines, are becoming medical practitioners and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people. Sometime such quacks commit blunders and precious lives are lost.

20) The government had been vigilant all along to stop such quackery. A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions.

Both the fora have given concurrent findings of the facts. The revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the State Commission. We find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may necessitate interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction from this Commission. This was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[2011 11 SCC 269] and recently in the case of ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’[Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022], it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited.

Respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra, we do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed in limine. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.