JUDGMENT -LODHA R.M., J.:---Dr. Manmath S. Raut petitioner herein has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directly aggrieved by the directions given by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Solapur, to the petitioners superiors to hold administrative enquiry about his misconduct and to inform the decision to the forum and that the complainant Mallikarjun Laxman Babare should be reimbursed all the expenses incurred for the operation. The petitioner has directly approached this Court in writ petition as, in his view, the aforesaid directions given by the District Consumer Forum in its judgment dated 27-2-1998 is without jurisdiction.

2.Ordinarily, we would have relegated the petitioner to approach the Consumer District Redressal Commission established in the State in appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but in view of the fact that writ petition was admitted by this Court in the year 1998 and for almost 4½ year the writ petition is pending before this Court and it may not be in the interest of justice now to ask the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal provided under the Act of 1986.

3.In the circumstances, we consider the matter on merit only with regard to the aforesaid direction which is impugned before us.

4.The first respondent herein was original complainant before the District Consumer Forum. The present petitioner and the Medical Superintendent E.S.I. Hospital, Solapur were impleaded as opponent Nos. 1 and 2. According to the complainant, he was in service a worker in Yashwant Sahakari Soot Girni. He being member of E.S.I. Hospital, he is entitled to the facility of medical service in the E.S.I. Hospital. On 4-2-1995, the complainant went to the present petitioner, who was posted in the E.S.I.S. Hospital, Solapur, for treatment. Initially some treatment was given to the complainant by the present petitioner and thereafter he was advised to undergo operation. The petitioner agreed for operation and on 10-5-1995 he was taken to the operation theatre. At that time, the present petitioner allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant. The complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount to the present petitioner. The present petitioner took the complainant out of the operation theatre and he was told that it was not necessary to perform the operation. The complainant approached Dr. Shekhar Shah in Wadia Hospital who told him that the treatment given to him was wrong and Dr. Shah advised the complainant to undergo operation immediately.

5.The present petitioner contested the complaint filed by the complainant and in his reply submitted that the complainant was advised to take injection first and pain killing drugs were prescribed by him. The first injection was given to the complainant on 2-3-1995 and thereafter on 10-5-1995 second injection was given. According to the petitioner, on 12-4-1995 X-ray was taken and then the complaint was advised operation. On 2-5-1995 the complainant was admitted, but as the operation programme was full operation of the complainant could not be undertaken and he was given discharge from the hospital. On 5-5-1995, the complainant was admitted for examination and operation and as per the opinion of the surgeon, operation was not essential. At that time on 10-5-1995, the complainant was given third injection. According to the present petitioner, many times by giving injection the doctor decided, to cure such patient without operation. The present petitioner denied the demand of Rs. 20,000/- in the operation theatre as alleged by the complainant. The present petitioner thus submitted that there was no deficiency in services and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

6.The District Consumer Forum on the basis of the available material, including the affidavits of Dr. Shekhar Shah and Dr. Popatani held that it cannot be said that there was deficiency in services by the present petitioner by postpo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document