State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Akhilesh Lahare vs Panikram Choudhary on 28 February, 2018
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2017/635
Instituted on : 26.08.2017
Akhilesh Lahre, S/o Tulsi Lahre,
R/o : Chhuipali, Police Station /Tahsil Saraipali,
District Mahasamund (C.G.) .... Appellant (O.P.)
Vs.
Panikram Chaudhary, S/o Ganeshram Chaudhary,
R/o : Chhuipali, Police Station /Tahsil Saraipali,
District Mahasamund (C.G.) .... Respondent (Complainant)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate for the appellant (O.P.).
Shri R.K Das & Shri Bhagyesh Sahu, Advocates for the respondent
(complainant).
ORDER
DATED : 28/February/2018 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.06.2017, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 25/2016. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
(1) The O.P. Akhilesh Lahre, will pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) towards compensation to the complainant within a period of two month.
(2) The complainant is entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a. on the remaining amount from the date of order till realisation. (3) The cost of litigation is allowed to the tune of Rs.200/-.
// 2 //
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the father of the O.P., Tulsiram Lahre is a Government Malaria Worker and his son (O.P.) Akhilesh Lahre has opened clinic in the name of Arogya Clinic and both are treating the patients by obtaining fees. On 04.01.2013 at about 7 A.M. the wife of the complainant namely Savitri Chaudhary suffered pain in her right eye, therefore, she was taken by the complainant to Arogya Clinic, then the father of the O.P., Tulsi Lahre told that his son is inside, and he will treat the patient. The O.P. examined the eye of deceased Savitri Chaudhary and written slip to take medicines form Ambika Medical, Village Chhuipali, then the complainant brought Pyrimon eye drop. The O.P. thrown down the eye drop in the eye of the patient and after pouring he eye drop in the eye, there is burning in her eye and water was taking out. The O.P. told that it will become alright and also told that at the time of sleeping in night, two drop be thrown out. The complainant and his wife came to their house and in the night again two drop of eye drop was thrown out in the eye, but there is burning. On next day i.e. 05.01.2013, the patient was taken to Dr. Subal Kishore, Eye Specialist, Sunayn Eye Care, Bargarh (Odisa) then he told that there is infection in the eye and there is hole in the eye. After taking treatment till 08.01.2013, the condition of patient became critical and she was taken to Baba Eye Hospital, Raipur where the doctor told that due to reaction of medicine, the eye was damaged and power of vision had gone, which show the medical negligence of the O.P. On 04.01.2013, the complainant and deceased Savitri Chaudhary submitted application before Police Station, Saraipali against the O.P. for taking action, then on 15.01.2013, the Police Station, Saraipali, sent MLC 113 to Dr. R.P. Agrawal, who sent the Mulahija form of Eye // 3 // Specialist to District Hospital, Mahasamund and on 18.01.2013 Dr. A.K. Chandrakar of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital found that there was reaction due to Pyrimon eye drop and opinion was given that the eye was damaged. According to the report dated 19.02.2013 of Eye Specialist of District Hospital, Mahasamund the eye of deceased Savitri Chaudhary was damaged due to wrong eye drop. As per query report dated 20.02.2013 of Police Station, on 28.03.2013, the Eye Specialist Dr. S.K. Shukla also gave opinion that due to wrong eye drop, the eye of the deceased Savitri Chaudhary was damaged. The O.P. is not a trained doctor, even then he treated the eye of the patient, which is deficiency in service.. After investigation in the report lodged by the complainant and deceased Savitri Chaudhry dated 14.01.2013, the Police Station, Saraipali registered office under Section 328 IPC, which is pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraiplai. Due to damage of eye, the deceased Savitri Chaudhary left to take meals, and she suffer problem in abdomen and due to fell down, she suffered injuries. She was admitted in Mission Hospital, Bargarh (Odisa) and Mission Hospital, Chhuipali for one months and on 18.03.2014 she died. In the clinic of Dr. T.R. Dhritlahre i.e. Arogya Clinic, his son has wrong treated the deceased due to which she lost vision of her eye and thereafter she die. Due to medical negligence on the part of the O.P. the complainant suffered mental and physical agony. Hence the complainant filed instant consumer complaint and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the complaint.
3. The O.P. filed his written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant against him and averred that O.P. has not opened clinic along // 4 // with his father in the name of Arogya Clinic and he is not treating the patient by obtaining fees. The O.P. is not doing medical work. The O.P. did not treat the deceased Smt. Saviri Bai. The O.P. is not running Arogya Clinic. In the instant case, the complainant did not filed any document containing handwriting of the O.P., which indicate that the O.P. written and medical slip on 04.01.2013. The complainant lodge report against the O.P. before Police Station, Saraipali. On the basis of false report lodged by the complainant against the O.P. before Police Station, Saraipali, Criminal Case No.250/2013 was prosecuted by Akhilesh Lahre before Judicial Magistrate First Class. On 23.07.2016, the O.P. was acquitted by J.M.F.C. Saraipali from the offence under Section 328 of I.P.C.. The complaint is false and frivolous. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed documents. Ex. 1 is test report of Sunayan Eye Care Clinic, prescription issued by Sai Baba Eye Hospital, Ex. 3 is Darkwasta vaste mulahija zakhmi sakhs ke, Ex. 4 is query report, Ex.5 is opinion of Dr. S.K. Shukla, Ex. 6 is opinion of Dr. A.K. Chandrakar of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Hospital, Ex. 7 is opinion of Dr. S.K. Shukla, Ex.8 is slip of Ambika Medical Store, Ex.9 is bill issued by Ambica Medical Stores, Ex.10 is complaint made by deceased Savitri Bai to Officer Incharge, Police Station, Saraipali against Akhilesh Lahre, Ex. 11 is letter dated 19.02.2013 sent by Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Mahaamund, Ex. 12 is First Information Report, Ex. 13 is Report of Catholic Mission Hospital, Bargarh, Ex. P-14 is treatment slip of Catholic Mission Hospital, Ex. 15 is treatment slip dated 23.1.2014 of Pushpa Hospital, Ex.16 is Statement of Sarpanch and Villagers, Village Chhuipali, Tahsil Saraipali.
// 5 //
5. The O.P. has filed photocopy of order dated 23.07.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali in Criminal Case No.250/13 Government of Chhattisgarh Vs. Akhilesh Lahre.
6. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has partly allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. to pay amounts to the O.P., as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
7. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the O.P. has not opened any clinic along with his father in the name of Arogya Clinic and he had not treated the wife of the complainant. The O.P. is not doing the medical work. The respondent (complainant) did not file any document containing handwriting of the O.P., which shows that the O.P. treated the wife of the complainant. In the medical bill dated 04.01.2013, given by Ambica Medical Stores, the name of the O.P. is not mentioned and in the bill it is mentioned that referred by T.R. Dhritlahre. The complainant did not make party to T.R. Dhritlahre. The complainant lodged report before Police Station, Saraipali and the Police Station, Saraipali filed charge sheet against the O.P. before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali. Vide order dated 23.07.2016, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali, acquitted the O.P. therefore, the complainant is utterly failed to prove that the O.P. had treated the wife of the complainant and negligently poured Pyrimon eye drop in her eye due to which, perforation occurred in the eye of the deceased. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion regarding medical negligence committed by the O.P., therefore, merely on the basis of making allegations, it cannot be held that the // 6 // O.P. committed medical negligence. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
8. Shri R.K. Das and Shri Bhagyesh Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) have argued that the father of the O.P., Tulsiram Lahre is a Government Malaria Worker and O.P. Akhilesh Lahre has opened clinic in the name of Arogya Clinic and they are treating the patients by obtaining fees. On 04.01.2013 at about 8.00 A.M., the wife of the complainant, Savitri Chaudhary, suffered pain in her right eye, therefore, she was taken to clinic of O.P. The O.P. asked the complainant to take Pyrimon eye drop from medical stores. The complainant purchased the above eye drop and gave the same to the O.P. The O.P. poured the above eye drop in the eye of the deceased. Due to above eye drop, the wife of the complainant suffered from burning in her eye . On 05.01.2013, the deceased Savitri Chaudhary was taken to Dr. Subal Kishore, Eye Specialist, Sunayan Eye Care, Bargarh (Odisha) who told that the complainant that eye of the deceased was infected due to Pyrimon Eye drop. Thereafter the complainant took his wife to Raipur and due to infection in the eye, the wife of the complainant died. The matter was reported to Police Station, Saraipai. The post mortem of deadbody of the deceased was conducted by the Doctor. In the post mortem report it is mentioned that due to reaction of Pyrimon eye drop, the deceased died. Dr. A.K. Chandrakar of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital found that there was reaction in the ye of the deceased due to Pyrimon eye drop. Looking to the above reports, it appears that the O.P. is not competent to treat the deceased and without experience the O.P. poured Pyrimon eye drop in the eye of the deceased, which come in the category of // 7 // medical negligence. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum, as well as the impugned order.
10. The complainant pleaded that on 04.01.2013 at 7.00 A.M. his wife Smt. Savitri Chaudhary suffered pain in her right eye, therefore, she was taken to private clinic Arogya Clini, where Tulsi Lahre, told the complainant that his son Akhilesh Lahre is inside and he will treat the patient. The O.P. asked the complainant to take Pyrimon eye drop from medical store, therefore, the complainant purchased the Pyrimon eye drop from medical stores and gave the same to the O.P. The O.P. poured the Pyrimon eye drop in the eye drop and due to pouring of the above eye drop, there is burning in her eye and water is taking out. The above contention has been denied by the O.P.
11. Looking to the prescription issued by Sunayan Eye Care Clinic, it appears that due to pouring Pyrimon Eye Drop by the O.P. in the eye of the deceased, perforation occurred in the eye. Sai Baba Eye Hospital, Raipur also gave same opinion. The Police Station, Saraipali, District Mahasamund wrote a letter dated 20.02.2013 to Eye Specialist, District Hospital, Mahasamund and in response thereto Dr. S.K. Shukla, Eye Specialist District Hospital, Mahasamund gave his opinion that Pyrimon is configured inelicuted. Pyrimon drop can cause perforation of corneal ulcer and loss of vision."
// 8 //
12. Looking to the above documents, it appears that due to pouring of Pyrimon eye drop in eye of the wife of the complainant, perforation was occurred in her eye and she lost her vision.
13. Now we shall examine whether the O.P. had treated the wife of the complainant, Savitri Chaudhary ?
14. The complainant has filed copy of bill No.900 dated 04.01.2013 issued by Ambica Medical Stores, Chhuipali in which the purchaser's name is mentioned Panikam Chaudhary. Doctor who referred is mentioned Dr. T.R. Dhritlahre. The complainant has not filed any document to prove that actual the O.P. had treated the wife of the complainant. If the O.P. would have written the prescription for Pyrimon Eye Drop, then certain Ambica Medical Store would have mentioned the name of the O.P., but in the bill, the name of Dr. T.R. Dhritlahre is mentioned. The complainant has not made Dr. T.R. Dhritlahre as party in the complaint. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Dr. T.R. Dhritlahre is a necessary party in the instant case. Therefore, it is just and proper to afford an opportunity to the complainant to make Dr. T.R. Dhritlahre, a party as O.P. No.2 in the complaint. For that purpose it is just and proper to remit the case back to the District Forum.
15. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is allowed, the impugned order dated 27.06.2017 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum with a direction that the District Forum will afford an opportunity to the complainant to make Dr. T.R. Dhritlahre, a party as O.P. No.2 in the complaint, if the complainant files an application for making Dr. T.R.Dhritlahre as O.P. N.2, he be added as O.P. No.2. The District Forum will // 9 // make Dr. T.R. Dhritlahre as O.P. No.2 and will issue notice to him and provide opportunity to file his written version, affidavit and documents. The District Forum will also provide opportunity to the complainant and O.P. No.1 to file documents, if they wish and thereafter, hearing both the parties, the District Forum, will decide the matter afresh on its own merits. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) on 20.03.2018. Office is directed to send the record of the case to the District Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) forthwith.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
28 /02/2018 28/02/2018 28/02/2018