Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Versions of Opposite Parties  

3. All OPs (except OP 2) contested the allegations in the complaint before the State Commission.

(i) In his written version, OP 1 raised the question of maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter, the Act) but admitted that Hiren was brought to him on 26.02.1990 and on examination he found that he had history of fever, cold and cough. He, therefore, prescribed Bactrim tablets, which contain long-acting sulfa (sulfonamide - known for curing fever and infection) and dispensed paracetamol and C.P. Maleate tablets (an antihistaminic drug). According to OP 1, he had administered sulfa drugs to Hiren in the past and he never had any reaction. He prescribed these medicines for three days and again examined Hiren on 28.02.1990. At that time, he noticed Kopliks spots, few rashes on the face, red eyes and congestion in the chest. According to OP 1, all three symptoms were suggestive of measles coupled with broncho pneumonia. The months of February and March were known season for measles epidemic in the area. He denied the allegation that Hirens fever was not controlled or that his lips were swollen when he was brought to him on 28.02.1990. When he was told that Hiren had been vaccinated for measles, OP 1 told the family members of Hiren that failure of measles vaccination was not uncommon. Measles, according to OP 1, was a viral disease and there was no specific treatment for it: only symptomatic treatment and treatment to prevent bacterial infection could be administered. OP 1 also stated that he advised the complainant to consult a paediatrician and gave a reference note to OP 2 who, as stated above, was a paediatrician attached to the Hospital. Local application for soothing was also prescribed. When the complainant again approached him on 01.03.1990, OP 1 found that the paediatrician had not been consulted. He, therefore, again advised to consult the paediatrician. According to OP 1, Hirens grandmother insisted that measles could not be cured by medicine and that Hiren should not be taken out of the house. OP 1 claimed to have warned the members of Hirens family that carelessness might result in major problems. It was only on 02.03.1990 that the complainant and the members of his family agreed to consult OP 2. OP 2, called in for a visit to the complainants house, examined Hiren and confirmed the diagnosis of measles with broncho pneumonia, and advised that Hiren be hospitalised immediately. Therefore, Hiren was moved to the Hospital. It is the case of OP 1 that he did not treat Hiren after 02.03.1990. OP 1 further denied that SJS was the reaction of the sulfa drug, Bactrim, since Hiren had been administered sulfa drugs in the past without any reaction/complication. Hirens SJS could have been due to a number of factors, including measles. In short, OP 1 claimed that there was no negligence on his part in treating Hiren and he was not liable to pay any compensation to either the complainant or Hiren.