State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bina Rana, Advocate vs Dr. Amit Maheshwari on 29 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 103 / 2012
Bina Rana, Advocate
R/o Jaya Mansion, Sector-9C/H-2
College Road, Baurari
New Tehri
Tehri Garhwal
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
Dr. Amit Maheshwari
Government Veterinary Hospital
New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal
......Respondent / Opposite Party
Sh. R.P. Bhatt, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Respondent present in person
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 29/08/2012
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal, thereby dismissing the consumer complaint No. 01 of 2010.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had a Chinese dog, which she had purchased about 5-6 years back for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. On 11.10.2009, the complainant observed that her dog is not well and she availed the services of the opposite party - Dr. Amit Maheshwari. The opposite party visited the house of the 2 complainant and after examination of the dog, told that the dog is fine and gave an injection to the dog. After five minutes of the injection, the dog started vomiting and passed urine and stool. The complainant asked the opposite party the cause for the same, but the opposite party did not give satisfactory reply and after prescribing some medicines and charging Rs. 100/- towards fee, left the house of the complainant. After thirty minutes of applying the injection, the dog died. Alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal.
3. The opposite party filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on 11.10.2009, the complainant called Sh. Atul Nautiyal, Veterinary Pharmacist in Government Veterinary Hospital, New Tehri in regard to her dog and asked him to see the dog immediately and then Sh. Atul Nautiyal called the opposite party regarding a severe case on urgency basis and told that the dog is vomiting from past few days and was not able to stand properly. It was also pleaded that there has not been any mistreatment or negligence on the part of the opposite party.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 28.05.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in person and perused the record.
6. The appellant - complainant has alleged that her dog died on account of negligence on the part of the opposite party - doctor. The exact cause of death of dog has not come on record. The dead body of 3 the dog was not subjected to postmortem, so as to reveal the exact cause of death of the dog of the complainant. The doctor has specifically pleaded in his written statement that on 11.10.2009, the complainant called Sh. Atul Nautiyal, Veterinary Pharmacist in Government Veterinary Hospital, New Tehri in regard to the condition of her dog and asked him to see the dog immediately and Sh. Atul Nautiyal called the opposite party regarding a severe case on urgency basis and told that the dog was vomiting from past few days and was not able to stand properly. The complainant has not controverted this fact. The complainant has also not produced any evidence to show that there was any carelessness or negligence on the part of the opposite party - doctor and that the doctor did anything which he ought not to have done in the present facts and circumstances. The complainant has also not been able to prove that the opposite party had applied wrong injection to her dog, on account of which, the condition of the dog worsened and the dog ultimately died. This apart, as stated above, the exact cause of death of dog could only have come to light if the dog would have been subjected to postmortem, but the same was not done in the present case. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no medical negligence can be attributed to the opposite party.
7. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference. The appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
8. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K