State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Jajbir Singh Sandhu vs Dharam Singh Son Of Hari Singh on 31 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.390 of 2005
Date of institution : 9.3.2005
Date of decision : 31 .8.2010
Dr. Jajbir Singh Sandhu, Orthopaedician, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur City, Tehsil
and District Forozepur.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Dharam Singh son of Hari Singh, resident of Basti Khalil Wali, Dakhli
Malwal Qadim, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
......Respondent-complainant
2. Punjab Health Systems Corporation, State Institute of Health and Family
Welfare, Punjab, Phase-VI, Mohali, Near Civil Hospital, Mohali through its
Managing Director.
3. Punjab Health Systems Corporation through Incharge, Civil Hospital,
Ferozepur City.
First Appeal against the order dated 3.2.2005 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ferozepur.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : Shri Mukesh Goyal, Advocate with Shri Padam Kant , Advocate and Dr. Jajbir Singh Sandhu (appellant in person).
For respondent No.1 : Ms. Harpinder Kaur, Advocate for Shri O.P. Kamboj, Advocate.
For respondents No.2&3 : Shri Sandeep Khunger, Advocate and Ms. Amarinder Kaur, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
This order will dispose of three appeals, namely, First Appeal No.390 of 2005 (Dr. Jajbir Singh Sandhu v. Dharam Singh and others), First Appeal No.471 First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 2 of 2005 (Punjab Health Systems Corporation v. Dharam Singh and others) and First Appeal No.563 of 2005 (Dharam Singh v. Punjab Health Systems Corporation and others) as all these appeals are directed against the same impugned order dated 3.2.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "District Forum"). Facts are taken from First Appeal No.390 of 2005 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. This is an unfortunate case where the right leg of Dharam Singh respondent No.1 (appellant in First Appeal No.563 of 2005) (in short "the patient")was amputated but this is also one of the rarest cases where the patient has tried to make money for the amputation of his leg by misusing the law.
3. It was pleaded by the patient that he was travelling on a cycle on 2.10.2003 along with his other co-workers. He came out of the premises of Ferozepur Food Private Limited Company and was going to his village Basti Khalil Wali, Dhakhli Malwal Qadim, Tehsil and District Ferozepur. The tractor bearing registration certificate No.PCE-4197 came on the scene which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and he struck his tractor against the patient. As a result the patient was injured. He was got admitted by the tractor driver in Aarti Hospital, Ferozepur. However the tractor (somewhere the patient has mentioned truck in the complaint) owner did not follow and the patient was taken on 3.10.2003 at 9.00 A.M. in the Emergency Ward of Civil Hospital, Ferozepur for medico legal examination. He was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. Necessary information was given to the police and a case was registered against Piara Singh tractor driver.
4. It was further pleaded that the patient was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur with file bearing No.4504 by Dr. Gian Singh and treatment of the patient was started. Necessary fee of Rs.435/- was deposited by the patient on 3.10.2003 itself. The patient also deposited an amount of Rs.50/- as M.L.R. fee on 6.10.2003 and Rs.40/- as x-ray fee on 8.10.2003. The receipts dated 9.10.2003 First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 3 and 16.10.2003 were also issued by the Incharge, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur in favour of the patient.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellant Dr. Jajbir Singh Sandhu was an Orthopedic Surgeon in the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur but the appellant did not attend the patient for the period from 3.10.2003 to 7.10.2003 though it was mentioned in the general case sheet that the appellant would attend to the patient. The x-ray report dated 7.10.2003 revealed segmental fracture and close reduction was advised. Plaster of Paris (POP) under the general anaesthesia was applied by the appellant on 8.10.2003. Even thereafter the patient was not examined by the appellant on which the patient was compelled to leave the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and he got discharged on 16.10.2003.
6. It was further pleaded that the patient could not bear the pain in the plastered limb, therefore, he was again admitted in the said Hospital on 26.10.2003 in the emergency ward. The doctor on duty had sought the consultation of the appellant but the appellant attended the patient only on 27.10.2003. Even thereafter the appellant did not bother to examine the patient for many days during the stay of the patient in the hospital. As a result the patient developed the blister formation which led to loss of skin over whole of the right leg of the patient. It happened due to the medical negligence committed by the appellant. Still the appellant did not attend to the patient upto 7.11.2003. The patient was examined by the appellant on that date. Again the appellant ignored the patient and examined him only on 16.11.2003.
7. It was further pleaded that on 19.11.2003 the patient was referred to Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar by the appellant. On reaching that hospital right leg of the patient was amputated on 1.12.2003. The doctors of Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar told the patient that the amputation of his leg had taken place due to carelessness of the appellant.
8. It was further pleaded that due to medical negligence of the appellant the injured limb of the patient got infected which led to amputation of his leg. First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 4 Moreover the patient also suffered because of infection. His kidneys were damaged. It also led to blood sugar and mental torture of the patient. If the patient had been carefully treated by the appellant, the right leg of the patient would have been saved from amputation.
9. It was further pleaded that the patient has two sons and one daughter who were still unmarried. His family members were dependants upon him. Due to the medical negligence of the appellant, the patient had to spend an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- for his medical treatment. Moreover after the amputation of his right leg the patient could not walk and could not work properly. Therefore the patient has been deprived of his income for whole of his life. The patient filed the complaint originally against the appellant alone claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs for his mental harassment and permanent disability. He also claimed Rs.2 lakhs for mental harassment. In all, he claimed a sum of Rs.12 lakhs as compensation. Costs were also prayed.
10. Thereafter the Punjab Health Systems Corporation respondent No.2 (appellant in First Appeal No.471 of 2005) and Punjab Health Systems Corporation through Incharge, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur City respondent No.3 were also impleaded.
11. Respondents No.2 and 3 filed joint written statement. It was admitted that Civil Hospital, Ferozepur City was being run under the supervision of Punjab Health Systems Corporation having its Head Office at Mohali and that Dr. Jasjit Singh Sandhu was working under the control of Punjab Health Systems Corporation.
12. It was denied for want of knowledge if the patient had suffered an accident with the tractor but it was admitted that the patient was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur city on 3.10.2003 and its information was given to the police. It was also admitted that the patient was admitted in the emergency ward and that surgical ward and orthopedic ward were one and the same thing. It was pleaded that the patient was admitted by Dr. S.K. Kinnra and not by Dr. Gian Singh. The First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 5 admission fee of Rs.35/- only was charged from the patient against receipt No.900211. Again the receipt for an amount of Rs.50/- was issued to the patient on 6.10.2003 as M.L.R. fee and the receipt for Rs.40/- was also issued to the patient as the price of x-ray film. Again receipt No.900521 was issued and thereafter the receipt dated 9.10.2003 was issued. Rs.160/- were also charged from the patient on 16.10.2003 as the POP fee. The said fees was deposited by the patient in the account of Punjab Health Systems Corporation respondent No.2 and it was charged from him for various procedures required for the patient.
13. It was further pleaded that the patient was looked after by Dr. Pritam Singh Sona whose duty was to look after all the patients admitted in the ward. It was also admitted that Dr. Jajbir Singh was an Orthopedic Surgeon in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. The record of Civil Hospital, Ferozepur relating to the patients was correctly prepared and maintained without any additions or alterations. Record of the patient was also prepared correctly.
14. It was further admitted that the x-ray was conducted on the patient on 7.10.2003 which revealed segmental fracture and close reduction was advised so also the POP. Under the general anaesthesia the POP was applied on the right leg of the patient on 8.10.2003. It was denied if the appellant had committed any medical negligence in the performance of his duties. It was also denied if respondents No.2 and 3 were liable in any manner to pay any compensation to the patient.
15. Dr. Jajbir Singh Sandhu appellant filed a separate written statement. It was denied for want of knowledge if the patient had met with an accident with a tractor. However it was admitted that as per the record of Civil Hospital, Ferozepur the patient was admitted in emergency ward of Civil Hospital, Ferozepur on 3.10.2003 by Dr. S.K. Kinnra. The registration of the FIR against Piara Singh about this accident was denied for want of knowledge. The patient was admitted in the main surgical ward by Dr. S.K. Kinnra who was on emergency duty.
First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 6
16. It was further pleaded that the admission fee of Rs.35/- was charged from the patient against receipt No.900211. Another receipt was issued to the patient on 6.10.2003 for Rs.50/- as M.L.R. fee and the receipt for Rs.40/- as the price of x-ray film vide receipt No.900521. Again receipt dated 9.10.2003 was issued to the patient. It was made clear that the amount charged from the patient by the Punjab Health Systems Corporation was not a fee for service. Rather it was charged as the price of various procedures required to be applied.
17. It was further pleaded that the leg of the patient was already under plaster at the time of his admission in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and this fact was mentioned by Dr. S.K. Kinnra at the time of admission of the patient in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. The patient was admitted in the Male Surgical ward which was under
the control of Dr. Pritam Singh Sona. The appellant was consulted by Dr. Pritam Singh Sona only on 7.10.2003. The history record had been tampered with by the patient in connivance with some other persons and certain additions had been made in the bed head ticket dated 4.10.2003. The words "consult Dr. Sandhu"
had been added on 5.10.2003 with a mala fide intention to connect the appellant with the alleged medical negligence. Rather the appellant had examined x-ray film of the patient and advised for close reduction and POP under general anaesthesia and also advised that the patient was kept on fasting. It was also made clear that the M.L.R. was got conducted on 6.10.2003 by Dr. Anil Kaushal.
18. It was further pleaded that before that there was no occasion for the appellant to examine the leg of the patient which was already under plaster having been applied by some private doctor. POP on the leg of the patient had already been cut before he was examined by the appellant. From the medico legal examination it was clear that Sero-sanguinous discharge was coming out from injury no.1 of the patient. It means that blister formation was already there. The appellant had given proper treatment to the patient after he was referred to the appellant. It was denied that the appellant was Incharge of orthopedic ward nor there was any such ward in existence in the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. It was First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 7 pleaded that the appellant was called to attend the orthopedic patients by the surgical specialists as the appellant was M.S. in orthopedic surgery. It was strongly denied if the appellant had not attended to the patient.
19. It was admitted that there was a segmental fracture and close reduction. POP was applied on the leg of the patient on 8.10.2003. It was denied if the patient was not examined by the appellant or if the appellant had not paid any attention to him. It was also denied if the patient was compelled to leave the Civil Hospital. Rather he was discharged on 16.10.2003 by Dr. Pritam Singh Sona who was the Incharge of the surgical ward. The discharge slip was also issued by surgical specialist and not by the appellant.
20. It was admitted that the patient again got admission in the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur on 26.10.2003 from Dr. Rajinder Manchanda. It was denied if Dr. Manchanda had advised the patient for consultation of the appellant. Rather the patient had consulted the appellant on 27.10.2003. On that date, the appellant had advised the patient for the pus culture and sensitivity tests which were advised to him earlier. The appellant had also advised x-ray and laboratory investigation which were conducted in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur on 28.10.2003. On examination of these reports, ESR and blood urea were found in excess. Culture sensitivity test was got conducted by the patient from some private laboratory and the report was supplied to the appellant on 29.10.2003. It was denied if the appellant had not taken care of the patient after 27.10.2003. Rather the tests were got conducted immediately after the admission of the patient in the hospital. Test reports revealed that there was a blister formation already in existence at the time of second admission of the patient.
21. The patient was examined by many doctors including by the appellant during his stay in the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur from 26.10.2003 to 7.11.2003. Ultimately the appellant had advised the patient for admission in Medical College for further treatment. It was denied if the blister formation had developed due to medical negligence on the part of the appellant or if the patient was left First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 8 unattended. Despite the advice given by the appellant on 7.11.2003 the patient did not go to any Medical College and remained in the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur on his own will. The appellant again advised the patient on 16.11.2003 for diabetic control and skin grafting. The patient left the hospital only on 19.11.2003. The reference slip was issued by the appellant as the patient had agreed to go to some Medical College. Surprisingly the patient went to Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar which was a private Institute.
22. It was further pleaded that the patient was never referred to Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar. Rather the appellant had no knowledge about the amputation of the leg of the patient. The patient himself was at fault which led to the amputation of his leg. He was treated by many doctors according to the medical norms. The patient was a chronic patient of diabetic and kidney dysfunction. That was the possible cause for the blister formation. This fact was admitted by the patient before the amputation of his leg. It was denied if the appellant had committed any medical negligence or if the patient was entitled to any compensation. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
23. The patient filed his affidavit dated 5.10.2004. He also filed supplementary affidavit dated 6.12.2004 and still another affidavit dated 20.1.2005. The patient also placed on the file the medical certificate dated 22.9.2004 issued by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and the Referral-cum-Feed Back Card. He also placed on the file the medical record of Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar.
24. On the other hand, the appellant filed his affidavit dated 11.11.2004 and the medical record of the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur relating to the patient.
25. On the basis of these pleadings and the evidence, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.2,000/- vide impugned order dated 3.2.2005. The appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 were directed to make the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the patient jointly and severally for the loss of his leg and Rs.50,000/- as the reimbursement of the medical First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 9 expenditure of the patient. The appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 were also directed to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
26. Hence the present appeal (First Appeal No.390 of 2005) has been filed by the appellant with the prayer that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 3.2.2005 be set aside.
27. Respondent No.2 also filed appeal (First Appeal No.471 of 2005) with the prayer that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 3.2.2005 be set aside.
28. On the other hand, the patient also filed appeal (First Appeal No.563 of 2005) with the prayer that the appeal be accepted and the amount of compensation be enhanced.
29. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
30. The appellant is posted in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur under the control of respondent No.2 (appellants in First Appeal No.471 of 2005) and respondent No.3. The patient had made the payment of Rs.35/- only towards the fee. It was received by respondents No.2 and 3. No fee was received by the appellant.
31. Moreover the fees paid by the patient to respondents No.2 and 3 was only towards various procedures to be adopted by the doctors of Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and not towards the medical fee. The other amounts paid by the patient to respondents No.2 and 3 were towards the M.L.R. fee or x-ray film charges or POP charges. In other words, the medical fee normally charged by the private hospitals and private doctors was not received either by the appellant or by respondents No.2 and 3. In this context reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as, "Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and others" 1996(1) Consumer Law Today 1. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5 as under:-
"5. The National Commission by its judgment and order in Consumer Unity & Trust Society versus State of Rajasthan, (1992) 1 C.P.J. 259 (N.C.) has held that First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 10 persons who avail themselves of the facility of medical treatment in government hospitals are not 'consumers' and the said facility offered in the government hospitals cannot be regarded as service 'hired' for 'consideration'. It has been held that the payment of direct or indirect taxes by the public does not constitute 'consideration' paid for hiring the services rendered in the government hospitals. It has also been held that contribution made by a government employee in the Central Government Health Scheme or such other similar Scheme does not make him a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.18497 of 1993 has been filed by Consumer Unity Trust Society, a recognized consumer association, against this judgment of the National Commission."
32. It was concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.P. Shantha's case (supra) as under:-
"43. The other part of exclusionary clause relates to services rendered "free of charge". The medical practitioners, government hospitals/nursing homes and private hospitals/nursing homes (hereinafter called "doctors and hospitals") broadly fall in three categories:-
(i) where services are rendered free of charge to everybody availing of the said services.
(ii) where charges are required to be paid by everybody availing of the services and First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 11
(iii) where charges are required to be paid by persons availing of services but certain categories of persons who cannot afford to pay are rendered service free of charges.
There is no difficulty in respect of the first two categories. Doctors and hospitals who render service without any charge whatsoever to every person availing of the service would not fall within the ambit of 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purposes only would not alter the position in respect of such doctors and hospitals. So far as the second category is concerned, since the service is rendered on payment basis to all the persons, they would clearly fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The third category of doctors and hospitals do provide free service to some of the patients belonging to the poor class but the bulk of the service is rendered to the patients on payment basis. The expenses incurred for providing free service are met out of the income from the service rendered to the paying patients. The service rendered by such doctors and hospitals to paying patients undoubtedly falls within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act."
33. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment as under:-
"44. The question for our consideration is whether the service rendered to patients free of charge by the doctors and hospitals in category (iii) is excluded by First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 12 virtue of the exclusionary clause in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. In our opinion, the question has to be answered in the negative."
34. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment as under:-
"45. In respect of the hospitals/nursing homes (government and non-government) falling in category
(i), i.e., where services are rendered free of charge to everybody availing of the services, it has been urged by Shri Dhavan that even though the service rendered at the hospital being free of charge, does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act insofar as the hospital is concerned, the said service would fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) since it is rendered by a medical officer employed in the hospital who is not rendering the service free of charge because the said medical officer receives emoluments by way of salary for employment in the hospital. There is no merit in this contention. The medical officer who is employed in the hospital renders the service on behalf of the hospital administration and if the service, as rendered by the hospital, does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o), being free of charge, the same service cannot be treated as service under Section 2(1)(o) for the reason that it has been rendered by a medical officer in the hospital who receives salary for employment in the hospital. There is no direct nexus between the payment of the salary to the medical officer by the hospital administration and the person to whom service First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 13 is rendered. The salary that is paid by the hospital administration to the employee medical officer cannot be regarded as payment made on behalf of the person availing of the service or for his benefit so as to make the person availing of the service a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) in respect of the service rendered to him. The service rendered by the employee medical officer to such a person would, therefore, continue to be service rendered free of charge and would be outside the purview of Section 2(1)(o)."
35. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the patient was not a 'consumer' of the appellant or of respondents No.2 and 3 as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he was medically treated free of charges. Rs.35/- charged from the patient were not the medical fee. It was the fee for various procedures and it does not bring the patient within the meaning of a 'consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
36. Otherwise also the medical negligence on the part of the appellant and consequential liability of respondents No.2 and 3 (appellants in First Appeal No.471 of 2005) has not been proved. The patient before his admission in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur on 3.10.2003 at 9.00 P.M., had already got plastered the fractures from some private doctor which fact was not disclosed by him in the complaint. That makes the entire difference. Moreover the patient had come to the emergency ward on 3.10.2003 where he was attended by Dr. S.K. Kinnra and not by Dr. Gian Singh as alleged by him. The patient was admitted in surgical ward where he was examined by Dr. Pritam Singh Sona. The services of the appellant were available only on demand by the other doctors. It is pleaded that he was consulted on 7.10.2003 on the advice of Dr. Pritam Singh Sona. Therefore the allegation of the patient that he was not attended by the appellant from 3.10.2003 to 7.10.2003 did not arise.
First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 14
37. On 7.10.2003 the x-ray conducted on the right leg of the patient was examined by the appellant and it showed segmental fracture and advised close reduction and POP under the general anaesthesia. Thereafter the POP was applied on the leg of the patient on 8.10.2003. The patient was discharged on 16.10.2003 by Dr. Pritam Singh Sona under whose direct supervision the patient was getting medical treatment.
38. Moreover the appellant being under the control of Punjab Health Systems Corporation i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 is protected by the Punjab Health Systems Corporation Act, 1996 when the appellant is discharging his duties under this Act. Section 15 of this Act reads as under:-
"15. Protection of action done in good faith. (1) No suit or prosecution shall be entertained in any court against the Corporation or against any officer or servant of the Corporation or person under the order or direction of the Corporation for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any regulation made thereunder.
(2) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any officer or servant of the Corporation for any act done or purporting to be done under this Act or any regulation made thereunder without the previous sanction of the Corporation."
39. Therefore, no suit, prosecution and other legal proceedings can be initiated against the appellant without the previous sanction of the Punjab Health Systems Corporation i.e. respondents No.2 and 3. In the present case the patient has not obtained the prior sanction of the Corporation i.e. respondents No.2 and 3. Therefore the consumer complaint filed by the patient against the appellant and against respondents No.2 and 3 is not maintainable and is vitiated by the provisions of Punjab Health Systems Corporation Act, 1996. First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 15
40. The documents placed on the file by the appellant reveal that on 20.11.2003 the patient had filed an application before the Medical Superintendent of Sri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar for waiver of charges. On this application the Medical Superintendent of Sri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar had given 50% concession to the patient.
41. What is more condemnable on the part of the patient was that he had filed an application before the Market Committee, Ferozepur Cantt with the allegations that his leg was amputated when he was cutting the green fodder in the machine run by the engine and the amputation took place on 22.12.2003 and the said amputation had taken place in the fields of Basti Khalil Wali (Page 6). His application was duly supported by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Malwal Qadim and the patient had also given his affidavit dated 25.2.2004 that his right leg was amputated when he was cutting the green fodder in the machine which was being run by the engine (Page 8). The patient also furnished the medical certificate from Dr. Avtar Singh, M.B.B.S., M.D., Modi Mill Road, Ferozepur City dated 2.1.2004 that the leg of the patient (Dharam Singh son of Shri Hari Singh, resident of Basti Khalil Wali, Malwal Qadim) was amputated when he was working in his fields for the cutting of green fodder with the machine run by the engine. The Secretary of the Market Committee, Ferozepur Cantt sent a letter dated 4.3.2004 to the SDM, Ferozepur to verify these facts and the SDM, Ferozepur had marked it to the Tehsildar/Patwari. The patient secured these reports from the Patwari and from the Tehsildar and ultimately from the SDM, Ferozepur that the leg of Dharam Singh patient was cut on 22.12.2003 when he was working on the machine run by the engine. Ultimately the patient was called for interview on 30.6.2004 by the Secretary, Market Committee, Ferozepur Cantt and he was paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation in August 2004 for the amputation of his leg.
41. The conduct of the patient was most condemnable when he is putting up a different version before the Secretary, Market Committee, Ferozepur Cantt about First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 16 the amputation of his leg only with the greed to get the money. In other words, the amputation of his leg was made a source of income by the patient.
42. The patient also filed a claim petition under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur against Piara Singh son of Shri Sohan Singh, New India Assurance Company Ltd. and against Hemant Mittal son of Brij Bhushan under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs with the allegations that he was injured in the accident caused by Piara Singh driver of the truck owned by Hemant Mittal which was insured with New India Assurance Company. It was dismissed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur vide order dated 3.5.2007 by noticing all these facts that on the one hand the patient seeks compensation from Dr. Jajbir Singh appellant and on the other hand, he gets the compensation from the Market Committee, Ferozepur Cantt alleging different set of facts and he was claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by alleging different set of facts.
43. Dr. Jajbir Singh Sandhu appellant also got registered a case against the patient at FIR No.5 dated 12.1.2006 in the PS-Ferozepur Cantt for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC on the plea that the patient was forging documents relating to the amputation of his leg. The patient, therefore, has made the amputation of his leg as a source of his income without having any fear of God and making false allegations against the appellant who was serving under respondents No.2 and 3.
44. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal (First Appeal No.390 of 2005) is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 3.2.2005 passed by the learned District Forum is set aside.
45. This case does call for imposition of heavy costs on Dharam Singh patient but since his leg has already been amputated and his claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed, therefore, the patient deserves some sympathy and the costs are not imposed on him. First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 17
46. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 9.3.2005. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. FIRST APPEAL NO.471 OF 2005:
47. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is also accepted and the impugned judgment dated 3.2.2005 is set aside.
48. Punjab Health Systems Corporation (appellants in First Appeal No.471 of 2005) had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 23.3.2005. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant Punjab Health Systems Corporation by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
FIRST APPEAL NO.563 OF 2005:
49. In view of the reasons given in the main judgment this appeal deserves dismissal and is dismissed.
50. The arguments in these cases were heard on 27.8.2010 and the orders were reserved. Now, the orders be communicated to the parties.
51. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.]) MEMBER August 31 , 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA) Bansal MEMBER First Appeal No.390 of 2005. 18