MANGALSINH RATANSINH GOHIL Vs. KANUBHAI HIMATBHAI JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this complaint, the complainant has prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs.5,50,000 on account of loss of vision in both the eyes of his son aged about 1 years as a result of alleged deficiency in service in rendition of medical service on the part of the opponent doctor. It has been alleged by the complainant that he had taken his son to the opponent doctor on 10.8.2001 for treatment of fever. After examining the patient, opponent doctor administered two injections and gave tablets by way of treatment to the complainant's son. On the next day the complainant found that his son's one eye had been totally lost in the sense that there was no vision in the said eye. The complainant once again went to the clinic of opponent doctor, where, without examining the patient in any manner, the opponent doctor had applied drops in the eye of the complainant's son. The complainant has alleged that thereafter his son's another eye was also damaged. Treatment for a period of 10 to 12 days was taken (the complainant has not stated where the treatment was taken) but as the swelling of the eye had not reduced, the complainant had taken his son once again to the opponent doctor on which occasion the opponent doctor told the complainant to take his son wherever he wanted to take him and get him treated and he was accordingly sent to Tajpur where the complainant was informed that there was no hope for cure of the complainant's son's eyes. He was also informed that the patient should be taken to Sayaji Hospital, Vadodara. Accordingly, the complainant saw to his son being admitted to SSG Hospital, Vadodara on 22.8.2001. It has been alleged that concerned doctor of SSG Hospital informed the complainant that vision in both the eyes of the patient was lost and that was on account of reaction of some medicine. The concerned doctor called for the papers of earlier doctors but the opponent doctor got enraged and threatened the complainant and drove him out. Under the circumstances, the complainant was required to approach this Commission for compensation as aforesaid. According to him he had to spend around Rs.45,000 for the treatment of his son's eyes. He has also alleged that the opponent is a practitioner of Homoeo medicines and was not permitted to practise Allopathic medicines and, therefore, he having administered injectible treatment as well as treatment of Allopathic tablets, he has followed unfair trade practice in the present case. The complainant tried to settle the matter after service notice to the opponent, who, instead of settling the matter gave false and evasive reply. The complainant is, therefore, required to file the present complaint as aforesaid.

(2.) The opponent doctor has resisted the complaint as per the affidavit in reply Exh.9. While denying the allegations contained in the complaint, the opponent has asserted that the complaint is not maintainable at law, that this Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as it has been filed for compensation in the sum which is less than the pecuniary limit of Rs.20,00,000 and above conferred on this Commission under the amended Act 2002 which came into force on 15.3.2003, that the allegations of facts with regard to the complainant having brought his son to the clinic of the opponent for treatment of fever or for that matter any other treatment have been denied while stating true facts. According to the opponent doctor, when the complainant had taken his son for treatment for his eyes, the opponent doctor visualising seriousness of the case suggested for getting the patient treated at the eye hospital at Tajpur. The complainant did not take his son to the said hospital at Tajpur but got him treated elsewhere. Rest of the allegations made by the complainant have been denied. The complaint is accordingly sought to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

(3.) In this complaint the opponent doctor has produced certain documents in the form of copies of police complaint and 'c' summary as also the reply given by him. The complainant has produced copy of the notice as also copy of the reply given by the opponent. We do not propose to take into consideration the application which was sent by the complainant to the President of this Commission where allegations against Dr. Parul Shah, former Member of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (Rural) at the relevant point of time have been made, as the same would cut both ways. It is possible that the complainant might have been ill-advised to write such a letter with a view to prejudice this Commission. It is also possible that the concerned member against whom allegations have been made might have indulged in such a practice as alleged in the said letter. As stated above, we do not propose to take into consideration the said letter and we propose to proceed with the matter on merits.