AJAY KUMAR Vs. DEVENDRA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 31.1.2003 passed by District Forum, Motihari (East Champaran) in Case No.21/2002 dismissing the complaint.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging therein that his father Sharda Prasad Singh retired on 30.9.1997 as Head Clerk. After retirement he was working in a shop of local businessman on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-. His father fell ill on 23.1.2002 and was brought to the clinic of respondent-O. P. for treatment and deposited consultation fee of Rs.60/-. The doctor prescribed him two medicines which his father started taking but the condition of his father deteriorated and he was having acute headache and both the eyes became reddish with unbearable pain. The appellant with his father approached the respondent-doctor on the next day who advised to stop earlier medicine and in its place prescribed another medicine of which his father started taking but his condition did not improve rather deteriorated. It is alleged that appellant thereafter took his father to another doctor namely B. K. Singh on 27.1.2002 who after examining him came to the conclusion that retina of both the eyes of the father of the complainant had become invalid. He also prescribed some medicine and advised to get him examined by an eye specialist. Appellant's father started taking the medicine prescribed by Dr. B. K. Singh and got some improvement. He got his father examined by a specialist on 31.1.2002 (Dr. A. B. Singh) who pointed out that in the prescription of Dr. D. Nath (respondent) the medicine "lariago D. S. " has been prescribed which is used in the case of malaria. This medicine is prescribed after pathological test but in this case the respondent-doctor has not advised for any pathological test and prescribed this medicine. Dr. Singh told him that due to side effect of this medicine his father's eye has been damaged and now there is no chance of improvement in the eye sight. The appellant thereafter took his father to Lumbani Ram Ambika Eye Hospital, Bhairhwa, Nepal where he was examined and it was declared that his eye problem was incurable and eye sight can not be restored.

(3.) The allegation of the complainant is that due to negligence on the part of Dr. D. Nath-respondent his father's both eyes were damaged and he lost eye sight. The job of his father discontinued and his life became a burden as he could not perform his duty properly. The appellant filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.4,95,000/-.