Sohan Singh vs M.S.D. Senior Secondary Public School and another

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Punjab dated 2.9.2015 in F.A. No. 221 of 2014 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents/OPs, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. 2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint against the OPs in the District Forum, Bathinda alleging that his son. Akashdeep was a student of 10th class in the OPs'' school. On 20.7.2012, the son of the petitioner drank water supplied from the school water storage tank. As the water was contaminated, Akashdeep fell ill. He was taken to Sidhu Nursing Home, Talwandi Sabo at Bathinda. After the medical aid, Akashdeep was sent to his residence. However, despite the treatment given by the doctor on 21.7.2012 and 22.7.2012, the condition of Akashdeep did not improve. The legs of Akashdeep became paralytic Therefore he was referred to Deol Bone and Joint Hospital, Bathinda on 23.7.2012 where he was treated. The condition of Akashdeep did not improve and he was continued to face difficulty in moving his arms and legs. Therefore, he was referred to Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana. Where he was treated as In-patient till 17.8.2012 but his condition did not improve. As per the discharge summary issued by the DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, Akashdeep had suffered from Tropical Myositis, Left Lower Leg Celutitis (inflammation), of connective issue along deenal and S/C layer, S/C Layer, Bilatual pneuno nia, Superficial follicutitis (inflammation of Hair Follicutitis, Chronic left ventricular Hyperplopy. It was alleged that minor Akashdeep is still under treatment and the complainant has spent almost Rs. 5 lakh on his treatment. According to the complainant, the OPs, by neglecting in providing safe drinking water to the students, has committed a deficiency in service. Hence, the consumer complaint. 3. The consumer complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing joint WS where they denied the allegations. If was pleaded that the drinking water provided for the students was not contaminated. As a matter of fact, there was an RO system installed in the school for providing safe drinking water to the students. 4. The District Forum, on consideration of the evidence upheld the OPs guilty of negligence. The District Forum therefore awarded a sum of Rs. 7 lakh as compensation on all accounts including the medical treatment and mental harassment and Rs. 20,000 as cost of litigation was also awarded to the complainant 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the OPs preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, on re-appreciation of evidence, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. 6. Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the order of the State Commission firstly on the ground that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that it was not that only the son of the complainant fell ill after drinking the water supplied in the school other students also fell ill after drinking water. It is contended that the State Commission has totally ignored the affidavit of the co-student-Amandeep Singh as also the affidavit of Mukhtiar Singh, father of one Jashandeep Kaur, minor, who was student of 8th calls in the school at the relevant time. 7. No doubt Amandeep Singh in his affidavit evidence has stated that many students of the school including the son of the complainant had consumed drinking water from the storage tank installed in the school and after consuming they started vomiting. Similar is the version of Mukhtiar Singh in his affidavit. The said two affidavits in our view are of no avail to the appellant for the reason that in order to succeed in the complaint, the complainant is supposed to prove that cause of the ailment of the son of the complainant is consumption of contaminated water as alleged in the complaint. To prove this best witness was the son of the complainant to depose that he actually consumed water supplied of the overhead tank and fell ill or that there was no RO water supplied for drinking to the students. In absence of the primary evidence, we find no reason to rely upon the affidavit evidence of other two witnesses. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that affidavit of Akashdeep could not be filed because he was minor. Admittedly, Akashdeep was a student of 10th class therefore by any stretch of imagination his age must be around 15 years. As per the law of evidence, minor is competent witness and he can depose in the Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that Akashdeep was paralytic at the relevant time therefore his evidence could not be given. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not impress for the reason that even in the complaint it is alleged that Akashdeep after treatment was finding difficulty in moving a round. This does not mean that he was totally unable to swear an affidavit or appear as a witness in the District Forum. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate in considering that the service card produced for the servicing of the RO d id not mention any date. We do not find merit in the contention particularly when the petitioner has failed to show the service card. 9. On perusal of impugned order we find that it is well reasoned order. The State Commission has taken note of the relevant treatment papers of the son of the petitioner wherein the State Commission found no mention of any history given regarding vomiting or the condition of son of the petitioner. The State Commission has also observed that there is not even a mention in the prescription slip issued by Sidhu Nursing Home that son of the petitioner was taken there during school hours. Fro m further perusal of order of the State Commission, it transpires that as per the discharge summary of DMC, Ludhiana, Akashdeep was diagnosed as suffering from Tropical Myositis and the State Commission has based his finding on the basis of the medical literature dealing with the causes and symptoms of myositis as also the other evidence. 10. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any fault or material irregularity in the well reasoned order of the State Commission which may justify interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.