State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Jayashekar vs Dileep on 27 June, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/2105/2017 ( Date of Filing : 21 Oct 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/09/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/290/2015 of District Mandya) 1. Dr. Jayashekar S/o C.M. Madhaiah, aged about 50 years, Medical officer, Government Public Hospital, Krishnarajpet (K.R.Pet) Mandya Dist-571426. 50 YEARS ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Dileep S/o Shivamurthy, aged about 11 years, Rep. by its Natural Guardian Father, Shivamurthy S/o Javaregowda, aged about 40 years, Both are R/at Theganahalli Village, Kasaba ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 27 Jun 2023 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing: 21.10.2017 Date of disposal: 27.06.2023 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 27.06.2023 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT Mrs. DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO. 2105/2017 Dr. Jayashekar, S/o. C.M. Madhaiah, Aged About 50 Years, Medical Officer, Government Public Hospital Krishnarajpet (K.R.Pet), Mandya District-571426. (Advocate - Sri.G.N.Dhananjaya) .....Appellant/s. V/s Mst. Dileep, S/o. Shivamurthy, Aged About 11 Years, Rep. by his Natural Guardian Father Sri. Shivamurthy, S/o. Javaregowda, Aged 40 years, Both are R/at: Theganahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Krishnarajpet Taluk, Mandya District-571423. (Advocate - Sri.B.C.Harisha) .....Respondent/s. ORDER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT
01. The opposite party No.1 has filed this Appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order dated: 22.09.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.290/2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya.
02. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties on record.
03. The District Forum after enquiring into the matter had partly allowed the consumer complaint No.290/2015 as against opposite party No.1 and directed the opposite party No.1 Dr. Jayashankar to pay a sum of Rs.2,12,413/- towards total medical expenditure and negligence within two months from the date of the order, failing which the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the said amount along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order till realization to the complainant.
04. Aggrieved by this order, opposite party No.1 had filed this Appeal.
05. Perused the impugned order and the grounds urged in the Appeal. It is observed that, the complainant filed the consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is the case of the complainant that, the opposite party No.1 is a medical doctor working at Government Public Hospital, Krishnarajpet, Mandya District. On 08.08.2014 the minor son of the complainant namely Master Dileep had taken treatment for fever from opposite party No.1 Doctor and for the said treatment the complainant had obtained an outpatient slip bearing No.5661 by paying Rs.5/- at Government Public Hospital. During the said treatment the opposite party No.1 prescribed "Diclo" injection which was given to the patient on intra muscular gluteus region (hip side) with other tablets. Thereafter he found swelling in the hip region where the opposite party No.1 - Doctor had injected him and as a result of which, he alleged that, he had lost grip in his left leg. For the alleged leg pain Master Dileep who was accompanied by his father and had visited the opposite party No.1 - Doctor on 14.08.2014, 16.08.2014, 20.08.2014 and 23.08.2014. Further allegation of the complainant is that, on 23.08.2014 when Master Dileep had visited the opposite party No.1 - Doctor, he was referred to Neurologist at KRH Mysore. The complainant's father had also filed complaint in Crime No.245/2014 on 11.11.2014 before the jurisdictional police at K.R. Pet, but the same was went in vain and accordingly he filed consumer complaint before the District Forum. After hearing both sides the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya had passed the order dated: 22.09.2017.
06. Further in the appeal the appellant/opposite party No.1 has contended that, on 19.11.2014 the appellant received a notice from the District Health & Family Welfare Office, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya, to submit explanation to the complaint filed by the respondent. On 17.12.2014 the investigation officer of the District Health and Family Welfare Office had enquired the appellant and submitted his report stating that, there is no negligence from the appellant in treating Master Dileep. The respondent was also called by the investigating officer to appear before them, whereas he had failed to appear and the same was submitted by the officer. Master Dileep underwent treatment at various hospitals and created false documents like medical bills for unlawful gain. The receipt given by Medall Diagnostics dated: 15.09.2014 clearly reflects that, the complainant had paid only Rs.1,000/- whereas at para-4 of the complaint he has stated that, he had paid Rs.2,00,000/- for 10 days treatment as an inpatient. Regarding this the complainant has not produced any certificate, reports, bills or the admission and discharge summary which clearly show that, the complainant had suppressed the real truth. The Medall Diagnostics is only a diagnostic centre and is not a hospital. The complainant had availed a free medical service at Government Hospital without consideration. The medical service provided in Government Hospital without consideration is not a service under the Act and all patients are given free service which is outside the purview of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of token amount is for registration purpose only at hospital as per the decision reported in (1996) 1 CPR 137 (NC). Further by relying the decision reported in 1995 (3) CPR 412 SC the appellant had contended that, as per this judgment when a person availing free service he cannot be a consumer within the meaning of the Act. The District Forum had failed to verify the originality of the documents and to take in to consideration of the expert report submitted by the investigation office of the District Health & Family Welfare Office. The District Forum had ignored the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 while passing its order.
07. From the above, it is observed that, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya, while passing its order dated: 22.09.2017 in CC No.290/2015 had not taken in to consideration Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act and the decision reported in 1995(3) CPR 412 SC and so also the expert report submitted by the investigation office of the District Health & Family Welfare Office, Zilla Panchayat, Mandya. Under these circumstances the impugned order dated: 22.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya, is unjust and improper and the same call for interference. Accordingly we proceed to allow the Appeal and the impugned order dated: 22.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fourm, Mandya, is hereby set aside.
08. The amount kept in deposit by the appellant shall be paid to the Appellant on proper identification.
09. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT KNMP* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER