SHYAM SUNDER TANTIA vs DEEPIKA

BOTH these appeals are directed against the order dated 21.1.1994 made by the District Forum, Sriganganagar in Complaint Case No. 730/1992 awarding Rs. 25,000/- each against the present appellants plus some other claims.

THE relevant facts are these : Dr. Charanjeet Sharma appellant in Appeal No. 57/1994 is in Government Service as a doctor and at the relevant time was posted as Medical Officer with Seth Kesar Chand Agarwal Memorial Hospital, Vijaynagar. Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia runs his mental hospital at Sriganganagar. THE case of the complainant, minor Deepika under the guardianship of father Lajpat Rai was that the complainant was born on 10.8.1991 and since she fell ill, her guardian consulted Dr. Charanjeet Sharma at his residence and the said Doctor after receiving a fee of Rs. 25/- directed the guardian to bring the child at the Government Hospital on the following day where he would examine her, that on the following day the guardian of the complainant produced the child before Dr. Charanjeet Sharma who after examining her but without test injected her thrice for DTP polio, that by 17.1.1992 the child developed high fever whereupon the guardian again consulted Dr. Charanjeet Sharma at his residence and again paid a fee of Rs. 25/-, that after examining the child Dr. Charanjeet Sharma prescribed Gardinal Tablet 60 mg. to be administered to the child for one month, that the child did not show any improvement whereupon the guardian again consulted Dr. Charanjeet Sharma who then advised him to take the child to Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia, appellant in Appeal No. 28/1994, that the complainant after paying a fee of Rs. 450/- got the child examined by Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia who carried on the E.E.G. test and opined that the child was suffering from epilepsy. Allegedly Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia further advised the guardian of the child to keep the child on Gardinal Tablet for next five years. THE complainant continued to consume the medicine prescribed by two appellants for some time but her condition continued to deteriorate, as stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent at Bar, the child practically became a mental patient. THEse facts were placed by the respondent before the District Forum which accepted them and decreed the claim of the respondent against the two appellants in the manner stated above. Despite notice of hearing to the appellant none appeared for him in Appeal No. 57/1994. Therefore, the Counsel for the appellant Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia and the Counsel for the respondent in both these appeals were heard.

The main argument of the learned Counsel for Dr. Shyam Sunder is that at no point of time the appellant had prescribed any medicine for the child nor did he advise her guardian to keep the child on gardinal tablet for 5 years. The case of the respondent on the other hand is that as advised by Dr. Charanjeet Sharma the guardian of the child had taken her to the hospital of Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia whereupon the appellant had conducted necessary tests and prepared the EEG report. The further case of the respondent is that Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia had orally advised the guardian of the child to keep on gardinal tablet for next five years. We have gone through the report prepared by Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia. The said appellant had diagnosed fits to the child and gave the impression that those were the epilepsy fits. This opinion was based on the test carried out by the appellant at his hospital. There is no satisfactory evidence on the point that this appellant had further advised the respondent to keep the child on gardinal tablet for a period of 5 years. In fact the consultant physican of the child was Dr. Charanjeet Sharma who had prescribed those tablets for her on 23.1.1992. Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia had carried on the necessary tests and investigation about the health condition of the child on 12.3.1992. After having obtained this report from Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia, the guardian would, in normal course, take the report to the consultant physician in order to have his final opinion regarding the treatment of the child. We thus find no satisfactory evidence on record so as to attribute medical negligence to Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia. Whatever fees he had charged it was towards his professional fees and for conducting the necessary tests. He did not prescribe any medicine by himself and the mere statement of the respondent that the doctor had verbally advised the guardian of the child to keep her on gardinal tablets for next five years cannot be accepted.

IN the result, the appeal preferred by Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia has to be allowed. Insofar as the appeal preferred by Dr. Charanjeet Sharma is concerned we find sufficient evidence on the point that he had charged fees at his residence for the purposes of examining the child in the hospital on the next day. Moreover the tablet gardinal 60 mg. was prescribed by him. Deepika was simply a child of few days when she was examined by the doctor. After his administering the polio vaccination the child could have developed fever in normal course but after that her personal medical consultant should have exhibited more professional skill and care in treating the child. We agree with the Forum that without conducting further tests Dr. Charanjeet Sharma had prescribed gardinal tablet for a child of few days to be consumed by her for a period of one month. The doctor should have taken care that the patient was simply an infant. In our opinion, Dr. Charanjeet Sharma was certainly negligent in rendering professional services to the child. In the result, we find no force in the appeal of Dr. Charanjeet Sharma and would dismiss it with cost at Rs. 1,000/-. In the result, the impugned order relating to Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia is set aside but the same is sustained and confirmed in respect of Dr. Charanjeet Sharma. Consequently the appeal preferred by Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia is allowed but the appeal preferred by Dr. Charanjeet Sharma is dismissed with cost at Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent. Ordered accordingly.