State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dharam Singh Son Of Pritam Singh vs Dr. Yadwinder Singh Sidhu on 2 December, 2009
S.TATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.2090 of 2009
In/and
First Appeal No.1482 of 2009
Date of institution: 16.10.2009
Date of decision : 02.12.2009
Dharam Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Mehlan Chowk, Tehsil Sunam,
District Sangur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Dr. Yadwinder Singh Sidhu, Veterinary Officer, Civil Veterinary Hospital,
Mehlan Chowk, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
2. State of Punjab, through District Collector, Sangrur.
3. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandary, Sangrur.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 02.09.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. T.P. Singh, Advocate LT.COL.DARSHAN SINGH (RETD.) MEMBER M.A.No.2090 of 2009 (delay) Appeal has been filed after delay of 4 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. Application is supported by an affidavit. We are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal within time. Consequently the application is allowed and delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Main case
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant / complainant (Dharam Singh) along with his son visited the Veterinary Hospital, Mehlan Chowk, Sunam on First Appeal No. 1482 of 2009 2 5.12.2007 for artificial insemination of his two buffaloes. The complainant alleged that he paid Rs.200/- to Dr.Yadwinder Singh Sidhu, Veterinary Officer in the hospital for this purpose. The opposite party No.1 (Dr.Yadwinder Singh Sidhu) gave one injection to one buffalo for the said purpose and after 10-15 minutes another injection was given to the second buffalo. The complainant further alleged that the second buffalo died on the spot as a result of this injection, which was due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 who gave a wrong injection to the buffalo. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party No.1 did not allow him to get the post mortem of the dead buffalo done by way of giving threat to him. The complainant submitted that at the time of death of his buffalo on 5.12.2007, in addition to his son Supinder Singh, other residents i.e. Ram Singh, Major Singh and Hari Singh of the village were also present in the hospital. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed consumer complaint with the District Forum, Sangrur and prayed for relief as under:-
i) Rs.30,000/- as price of the buffalo plus Rs.200/- as fee paid to the opposite party No.1.
ii) Interest on above amount @ 18% p.a.
iii) Rs.40,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
iv) Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
3. The opposite parties filed joint written reply and raised certain preliminary objections. It was submitted that the opposite party No.1 (Dr.Yadwinder Singh Sidhu) was a qualified veterinary doctor and could not be held negligent without expert opinion.
4. It was admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant and his son visited the Veterinary Hospital at Mehlan Chowk on 5.12.2007 for artificial insemination of his two buffalos. The complainant deposited Rs.80/- @ Rs.40/-
for each buffalo. Payment of Rs.200/- as alleged by the complainant was denied by the opposite parties. The opposite parties submitted that the artificial insemination of the first buffalo was done successfully and then the second buffalo entered into cattle crush for the artificial insemination. The straw was First Appeal No. 1482 of 2009 3 filled from the properly maintained semen. The straw of semen was inserted through the vagina with artificial insemination gun and the semen was deposited at proper site i.e. uterus of the animal. The opposite parties categorically denied that the buffalo died due to any injection as alleged by the complainant. The opposite parties further clarified that artificial insemination does not require any injection and there was not even a single case reported where the animal had died due to artificial insemination. The opposite parties also denied that other persons i.e. Ram Singh, Major Singh and Hari Singh were present in the hospital and allegedly witnessed the whole occurrence. The opposite parties further submitted that the cause of sudden death in animals can be known only by timely conduction of post mortem. The opposite party No.1 also denied having said to the complainant to lift the deed buffalo without getting the post mortem done.
5. Parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents brought on record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.2000/- payable by the complainant to opposite party No.1 ( i.e. Dr.Yadwinder Singh, Veterinary Officer). The District Forum considered and relied on the following judgments while deciding the complaint:-
i) Dr.D.C. Batalia Vs. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, 1994(2) CPC 533, M.P. High Court.
ii) Mahaveer Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006(2) CPC 248 Raj.
iii) Additional Director C.G.H.S. Vs. Dr. R.L.Butani, 1996(1) CPC 518 N.C.
iv) National Processors Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. 1997(2) CPC 440 Pb.
v) Subhashis Dhar Vs. Smt.Sanjukta Sengupta, 1999(2) CPC 522 N.C.
7. Hence the appeal.
8. The counsel for the appellant pleaded that the appeal be accepted and impugned order set aside.
9. Though a person getting free service from government hospital is not considered a consumer as held in judgments referred above, but in the instant case the opposite party No.1 has brought on record the receipt of Rs.80/- for First Appeal No. 1482 of 2009 4 carrying out the artificial insemination of two buffaloes of the complainant, which brings the opposite party No.1 within the ambit of service under the Consumer Protection Act.
10. The opposite party No.1 (Dr.Yadwinder Singh Sidhu) is a qualified and competent veterinary doctor under the employment of State Government. He has explained / clarified that for both the buffaloes the standard procedure of inserting the straw of semen through the vegina with artificial insemination gun and depositing the semen in the uterus of the animal was followed. There was no ill effect on the first buffalo. The cause of death of the second buffalo is uncertain for want of post-mortem report. The batch from which the semen was used was not only inserted into the first buffalo of the complainant but was distributed to other Veterinary Hospitals from where nothing adverse has been reported. The exact cause of death of the buffalo could have been ascertained only by way of post mortem examination and no one stopped the complainant from getting the same done. The deposition / affidavits of so-called witnesses namely Hari Singh (Ex.C-2) and Ram Singh (Ex.C-3) and also complainants of certain village fellows of the complainant (Ex.C-10 & Ex.C-14) in support of the complainant do not carry much weight in the absence of the post-mortem report. Moreover, a doctor can not be held liable for medical negligence on the certificate of non-medical persons.
11. The complainant has alleged that the sudden death of the buffalo was due to infection or wrong injection. We are not inclined to accept this version of the complainant as artificial insemination is being performed since long as per the practice / procedure laid down and accepted by the Veterinary Council of India. The opposite party No.1 had adopted this well established procedure. This has also been supported by other medical experts / veterinary officers in the field i.e. Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-7. No death of animal that had undergone this procedure has ever been reported. Admittedly, the complainant brought his two buffalos for artificial insemination and for the first buffalo it was done successfully without any complaint. The artificial insemination of second buffalo was done from the same batch of semen, by same person and by the same artificial insemination First Appeal No. 1482 of 2009 5 gun. The opposite parties in their written statement have also submitted that Dr.Yadwinder Singh who performed the artificial insemination is an experienced veterinary doctor and other has performed thousands of artificial inseminations in his more than 10 years of service. Sudden death of the animal could be revealed only by timely conduction of post mortem which the complainant failed to get the same done.
12. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity / irregularity in the impugned order dated 2.9.2009 and the same is upheld. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. However, the costs of Rs.2000/- awarded by the District Forum payable by the complainant is waived.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Lt. Col. Darshan Singh-Retd.) Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member December 2, 2009.
Davinder