N L PARIKH Vs. BITANU BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE petitioner was one of the opposite parties before the District Forum, where the complainant had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, namely, Dr. Satynarayan Chauhan.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the deceased Pramila aged about 27 years, was seen by the 3rd respondent, Dr. Satynarayan Chauhan at District Police Hospital, Mandsaur (M. P.) on 23. 10. 2003 for fever, where she was prescribed certain tablets, after which it appears that the deceased developed certain reactions on her skin where upon she approached the petitioner Dr. N. L. Parikh for the first time on 3. 11. 2003. He prescribed some malarial and anti-fever treatment and some ointment for skin reaction. On the prescription it was clearly mentioned that the patient is sensitive to Brufen. Later on she developed Steven Jhonson Syndrome (hereinafter referred to as SJS) and was admitted to RNT Medical College Hospital, Udaipur from where she was discharged at the request of her attendants and was taken to Rajasthan Hospital, Ahmedabad where she died on 19. 11. 2003. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the District Forum against the petitioner and the 3rd respondent alleging medical negligence. The complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order two separate appeals were filed before the State Commission, i. e. , one by the complainant and other by the petitioner for grant of compensation for filing an unwarranted complaint. Both the appeals were dismissed by a common order by the State Commission. Aggrieved by this order only the petitioner/o. P. No. 2 has filed this revision petition before us claiming compensation for filing allegedly a false and frivolous complaint.

(3.) WE heard the wife of the petitioner and perused the material on record. The basic facts are not in dispute that after getting initial treatment from Dr. Chauhan, Medical Officer in District Police Hospital, Mandsaur (M. P. ). The deceased approached the petitioner on 3. 11. 2003 and it is also not in dispute that certain anti-malarial and anti-fever treatment and some ointment was prescribed for skin reaction and it is also not in dispute that later on deceased developed SJS for which she was admitted into RNT Medical College Hospital at Udaipur. To a layman the reaction resulting in SJS could be relatable to any of the treatment prescribed by any of the treating Doctors, which included the petitioner. Even though both the lower Fora held that it was a clear case of self-medication or medication by family members without advice of any Doctor, yet the occurrence of SJS is attributable to several factors and it is not for a layman to determine the causes resulting in SJS. It is not in dispute true that the patient had visited the petitioner on 3. 11. 2003 and SJS developed on 6. 11. 2003 and it is also admitted position that the patient died on 19. 11. 2003. If in these circumstances, the petitioner was made a party before the District Forum where he was exonerated and also the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, we find no grounds to differ with the view of the State Commission taken by it on the appeal before them by the petitioner before us as we are unable to satisfy ourselves that the complainant had filed a complaint against the petitioner with any other motive than that of medical negligence. No evidence to the contrary is on record.