State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balasubramanian - Chellappa vs Minor Asok Kumar,Through His Father ... on 26 June, 2015
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K.ANNAMALAI,M.A.,M.L.,M.Phil. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
Thiru.M.MURUGESAN, B.Sc., B.Ed., MEMBER.
F.A.No.355/2012
(F.A.No.02/2012 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Chennai)
(Against the order in C.C.No.59/2003 dated 15.03.2010 on the file of DCDRF,
Tirunelveli)
THE 26th DAY OF JUNE 2015.
Balasubramanian @ Chellappa,
Sidha Hospital,
T.N. Pudukudi,
Puliankudi - Post,
Tirunelveli District. Appellant/Opposite Party
Vs
Minor. Asok Kumar,
Through his Father Narayanan,
Karuppasami Koil Street,
Nagaram Mullikulam - Via,
Sivagiri Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party: Mr.S. Natarajan, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant: Mr.D. Selvanayagam, Advocate.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 15.06.2015 and on
hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records this
Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
2
1. This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Tirunelveli passed in C.C.No.59/2003, dated 15.03.2010, allowing the complaint.
2. The complainant's minor son, Asok Kumar fell down from a tree on 27.05.2001 for which he had treatment with the opposite party's Siddha Vaithiyasalai and due to wrong treatment alleged to have been given subsequently while taking treatment with Allopathy Doctor, complainant's minor, son's right hand had to be amputated at Madurai which caused disability of 84% the complainant's son lost his right hand after the treatment given by the opposite party.
3. The District Forum on the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry earlier dismissed the complaint which was subsequently by way of interference by the State Commission in the appeal, the matter was remanded back and thereby fresh enquiry was conducted and thereafter an enquiry, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for loss and mental agony and Rs.5000/- as costs.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint contending that the opposite party was an agriculturist and had no Vaithiyasalai as alleged 3 and the District Forum relied upon the fabricated materials in the police case before the Magistrate and wrongly convicted in the Criminal Court against which the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. The evidence of P.W.s 8 and 9 opined that the defective treatment was caused which leading to amputation are all on the basis of surmise and deficiency remains to be proved and thereby the appeal to be allowed.
5. Per contra, the respondent/complainant contended that the opposite party though alleged an agriculturist but having Siddha Vaithiyasalai in the name and style of Agasthiyar Sidda Vaithiyasalai given treatment which caused amputation of his son's right hand due to wrong treatment given by the appellant and on perusal of the materials and the documents relied upon by the District Forum under Exhibits A8 and A9 proved the existence of Siddha Vaithiyasalai in the name of the opposite party and other materials and it is also proved that the opposite party was convicted for the offence in S.C. No.254/2001 as per Ex A15 involving criminal case under Ex A14 and thereby treatment of the opposite party through Vaithiyasalai was established and whether his treatment given wrong is proved by way of subsequent treatment with Allopathy doctor under Ex A10 discharge summary would go to prove on 30.05.2001 " Gas Ganrene of the right forearm and upper arm - above Elbow amputation was done followed by SSG on 9th day which caused on the basis of complaint of pain swelling of right forearm alleged history of injury 3 days back open wound present in the wrist for which he has taken native treatment. After that swelling 4 developed and Blebs present over the posterior aspect of the elbow " which caused due to the alleged treatment given by the appellant. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the findings of the District Forum regarding the negligence and deficiency in service against the opposite party are unassailable and have to be accepted. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the complainant's son at the time of filing the complaint was about 12 years being a minor and the occurrence took place on 27.05.2001 by falling from tree in which he had a fracture on his right hand for which native treatment was given by the opposite party and subsequently because of complications developed on the advice of doctor Devadoss at Madurai the right hand was amputated as per the details under Ex A10. When the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- was made as compensation along with interest of 12% in his complaint at the time of filing in the year 2002, the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation without any interest.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the award of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation was somehow on the higher side and it could be reduced justifiably. While considering this plea and considering the hardship and harassment caused to the complainant's minor son who was 12 years old at the time of filing the complaint in the year 2002, now more than 10 years lapsed and at this stage while considering the award of the District Forum a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- without any payment of interest with reasonable costs of Rs.5000/-, we are of the view that at this stage it is not justifiable to reduce the 5 compensation from Rs.5,00,000/-to any other lesser amount and thereby by taking into consideration of all the relevant materials and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, Tirunelveli passed in C.C.No.59/2003 dated 15.03.2010. No order as to costs in this appeal.
The direction of the District Forum shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxx Sd/ -xxxxxxxxxx M. MURUGESAN, A.K. ANNAMALAI, MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. INDEX: YES / NO TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- 2015/June