DEVINDER KUMAR S/O TEJ RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H P AND ORS
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Devinder Kumar S/O Tej Ram Sharma
State Of H P And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Shimla passed in Consumer Complaint No. 416/2004, dated 24.8.2009, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the complaint file are, that appellant who is hale, hearty and talented young man suffered physically on account of negligence, carelessness, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 2. Further averments in the complaint were, that the appellant passed matriculation examination in 1991 securing first division, then passed 10+2, and finally completed his Graduation from HP University in April, 1998 by securing good percentage in these examinations. Appellant in the month of March, 2000 was suffering from common cold and fever for which he visited IGMC and Hospital, Shimla and got himself medically examined from respondent No. 2 who after thoroughly examination, prescribed medicine "sparfloxac tablets", for a period of 5 days.
(3.) FURTHER averments in the complaint were, that after taking the medicine prescribed by respondent No. 2, when he walked in the sun during the day time, then all of sudden he experienced a burning sensation all over his body and before he could make out as to what had happened to him, he noticed that some blackish spots suddenly started appearing on the various parts of his body, such as face, arms, hands, feet etc.
Appellant then again visited IGMC Hospital where he was examined by some other doctor, and was informed to his utter shock, disbelief and surprise that respondent No. 2 had very negligently and carelessly prescribed "sparfloxacin tablets" to him. He was also informed by the said doctor on duty that the tablets prescribed to him, were prescribed only in exceptional cases as it was a very strong medicine. Further this medicine was to be prescribed to routine patients suffering from common cold and fever. In this background the appellant was compelled to file the complaint for gross medical negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 in giving him treatment as a result thereof he had suffered a lot and deficiency of service/unfair trade practice was alleged on the part of respondents. Respondents 1 and 3 were added being as parties employer of respondent No. 2, and the latter is the hospital where he was working. Respondent No. 4 was the manufacturer of the drug in question.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.