JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The second respondent took his seven years' old ailing daughter to the appellant who is said to be a child specialist for treatment. He was running a hospital known as `Disney's Medi-Kid Children's Hospital'. He advertised himself as a specialist in child diseases. The child was a student of third standard. On 22.6.2000, she vomited while in school. She was brought home immediately and thereafter taken to the appellant's hospital at about 3.p.m.

3. She was admitted in the hospital for undergoing some tests. Respondent No.2 was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.4,000/- therefor. The said amount was deposited. A blood test was conducted which disclosed abnormal increase in white blood cells.

4. A second blood test was also carried on which also showed abnormality in white blood cells. The child was discharged on 25.6.2000. She was advised to take the medicine prescribed. Appellant diagnosed the disease which she was suffering from as Tuberculosis. Vomiting by the girl, however, did not stop. It became more frequent. On 25.6.2000 she developed high fever. Appellant was consulted again. He assured the respondents that there was nothing to worry about the child and her condition was satisfactory. Respondent No.2 was advised to bring her back on 30.6.2000. Treatment on the same line was directed to be continued.

5. The child, in the meantime, had become weak. There had been considerable increase in the number of times of vomiting. She was taken to the hospital on 30.6.2000. Considering her condition, she was again admitted but was discharged in the night with the advice to continue the medicine advised for Tuberculosis with anemia. The treatment continued but instead of showing improvement, the child became almost crippled and was not even able to move. She had been taken to the hospital on a large number of occasions but respondent No.2 was on each occasion assured that there was nothing to worry about. Even his request to refer the child to another specialist for having a second opinion was not acceded to, contending that it was an acute case of Tuberculosis coupled with anemia and the patient would have slow recovery.

6. On 1.10.2000 early in the morning, the child developed high fever. She had rashes all over her body. Her face became swollen. She had been vomiting also. The child was taken to the hospital immediately.

7. Appellant, seeing her condition, became panicky. One Dr. Ramanna was called. He immediately suggested a `Biopsy of Bone Marrow' at a hospital. The child underwent the said test. The report was delivered on 4.10.2000. Dr. Ramanna informed the second respondent that the girl had been suffering from Leukemia which is in advanced stage and her liver was enlarged. He advised the girl to be admitted either in NIMS or Apollo Hospital pursuant whereto she was taken to Apollo Hospital. One Dr. Srinivasa Chakravarthy of Apollo Hospital informed the second respondent that the girl was at advanced stage of Leukemia and chance of her survival was bleak. She breathed her last on 10.11.2000.

8. Thereafter respondent No.2 filed a complaint petition before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on or about 4.12.2000.

9. He also filed a private complaint in terms of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The same was referred to P.S. Panjagutta under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A final report was filed on 30.09.2001 stating that the case was a `Mistake of Fact'. A protest petition was filed thereagainst. A re-investigation was directed as earlier the investigation had been transferred to Police Station, Saifabad whereas the final report was filed by Panjagutta Police Station.

10. Another final report was filed on 13.3.2004. Another protest petition was filed on the basis whereof cognizance was taken and processes were issued against the appellant by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 16.7.2004.

11. Indisputably, the Consumer Disputes Re