R K SHARMA Vs. MURTTIYA DEVI
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R K SHARMA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, partly allowing the consumer complaint No. 68/2005 and directing the opposite party Dr. R.K. Sharma, to pay to the complainant sum of Rs, 1,00,000 towards compensation and expenses incurred by the complainant in the patient s treatment within a month from the date of the order, failing which the amount was directed to be paid together with interest @ 6% p.a. The complainant was also awarded cost of litigation of Rs. 1,000.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt. Murttiya Devi -complainant approached Dr. R.K. Sharma - opposite party on 29.12.2003 for the treatment of her husband Sh. Ramvriksh Gupta. The opposite party diagnosed Sh. Ramvriksh Gupta as a case of tuberculosis and told the complainant that the treatment would continue for nine months. When the complainant noticed that there was no improvement in her husband s health, even after continuing the treatment for more than eight months, she asked the opposite party the reason for the same. The opposite party advised sputum test. The test indicated T.B. negative. The complainant consulted the doctors of Bhawali Sanitorium, Nainital, where the doctors diagnosed the patient as a non -tuberculosis case and expressed the possibility of some other disease of lungs. The doctor referred the patient to AIIMS, New Delhi. However, the complainant could not get a bed in AIIMS, New Delhi immediately for her husband, therefore, she took her husband on 20.10.2004 to V.P. Chest Institute, New Delhi, where he was admitted for treatment. After conducting several tests, the doctors concluded the patient as a case of "Sarcoidosis" and told that it was now in advanced stage. The patient died on 30.11.2004 in the hospital. The complainant, alleging that the opposite party kept the patient under his treatment without conducting proper tests and, thus, made medical negligence and, therefore, she filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.
(3.) THE District Forum vide impugned order, partly allowed the complaint in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, both the parties have filed these appeals. First Appeal No. 03 / 2007 has been filed by Dr. R.K. Sharma - opposite party challenging the impugned order on the ground that he had taken proper care in the treatment of the patient and had not made any medical negligence. First Appeal No. 04 / 2007 has been filed by the complainant, challenging the impugned order on the ground that the compensation awarded by the District Forum, is inadequate in view of the facts of the case. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.