ARVIND SHAH (DR.) Vs. KAMLABEN RAMSINGH KUSHWAHA
Arvind Shah (Dr.)
Kamlaben Ramsingh Kushwaha
Click here to view full judgement.
ANUPAM DASGUPTA,MEMBER - -
(1.) THIS appeal challenges the order dated 8.7.2004 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission') in Complaint Case No. 3/1998. By this order, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant, within six weeks from the date of the order, a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment and costs of Rs. 5,000. Hereafter, we refer to the appellant, original opposite party, as the OP' and the complainant as such.
(2.) THE complainant's case before the State Commission was that her son Prakash Ramsingh Kushwaha, aged about 20 years and otherwise healthy, died on 6.9.1997 because of the wrong treatment administered to him by the OP during 4 -6 September, 1997. Alleging medical negligence (deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereafter referred to as the Act') on the part of the OP, the complainant prayed for award of compensation of Rs. 11.05 lakh and costs of the proceedings. After considering the facts of the case, documents brought on record and evidence of the parties and witnesses, the State Commission passed the above mentioned order.
(3.) WE have heard Mr. Maninder Singh and Mr. Yoginder Handoo, learned Counsel for the OP and Mrs. Arunaben Shah, learned Counsel for the complainant and carefully considered the documents and evidence placed before us.
(i) The OP has challenged the State Commission's order mainly on the following grounds:
(a) He treated Prakash on 4.9.1997 and prescribed some medicines but not thereafter.
(b) On 4.9.1997, he did not diagnose Prakash with malaria because pathological tests were necessary to establish malaria and no such test report was available on 4.9.1997. Prakash admittedly visited and underwent treatment at other hospitals, including one Sharadaben Hospital' in the period after 4.9.1997 until his death. There was no evidence to suggest that the OP treated Prakash on 6.9.1997 and the State Commission did not come to any specific finding on this issue.
(c) The medicines prescribed by him on 4.9.1997 did not have any nexus with the actual cause of death, viz., pulmonary oedema', as established by the post -mortem report (PMR).
(d) The OP treated Prakash only on 4.9.1997 and thereafter Prakash went to and received treatment at other hospitals, including Sharadaben Hospital. Therefore, the State Commission seriously erred in holding the OP responsible for the death of Prakash.
(ii) In addition, the appeal has referred to some alleged inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant as well as one of the witnesses produced by her before the State Commission.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.