Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Rane,
President & Dr. R.N. Varhadi, Member
DR. PARAS K. RAKA—Appellant
versus
ANANT VITHAL TARKASBAND—Respondent
Appeal No. 637 of 2003—Decided on 25.2.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.K. Ranade, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of providing evidence and explanations in proceedings, especially in cases of alleged medical negligence and deficiency in services.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Services - Medical Negligence - The court upheld the District Forum's decision, finding the appellant deficient in rendering services and negligent in providing treatment, leading to the complainant's suffering. The appellant's failure to adduce any evidence and lack of explanation for non-appearance during the proceedings further influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant approached the original party (O.P.) for treatment of neck and arm pain. The O.P. applied traction, but the problem aggravated, leading to unbearable pain. The O.P. referred the complainant to a neurologist and a neurology hospital for further treatment, ultimately providing relief.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum found the O.P. deficient in services and negligent, leading to the award of compensation. The court upheld this finding, considering the lack of evidence and non-appearance of the O.P. during the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in services by the O.P., leading to the complainant's suffering and subsequent treatment at a neurology hospital.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the O.P.'s failure to adduce evidence, lack of explanation for non-appearance during the proceedings, and the District Forum's thorough evaluation of the material presented.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the District Forum's decision of deficiency in services and negligence by the O.P., with no order as to costs.
Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President—This appeal was moved before us by and on behalf of the appellant on 17th June, 2003 when we issued notice before admission to the respondent and in response thereto he is present along with his Advocate.
2. The appellant herein is original O.P. and the respondent is original complainant. (For brevity’s sake parties hereinafter shall be referred to as in the judgment with their said status in the complaint).
3. We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on hearing the learned Advocates for the parties as above and on perusal of the material availale in the appeal paper book.
4. O.P. has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27th March, 2003 whereby District Forum has held him being deficient in rendering services vis-a-vis complainant in giving treatment and so holding has made the award of Rs. 40,000/- towards cost incurred for the treatment, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
Few Relevant Facts :
5. The complainant is stated to be a young person of about 35 years old and he had developed pain in the neck and arm and, therefore, he approached the O.P. for the treatment.
6. It is noticed that the O.P. applied traction to the complainant. However, it is the case of the complainant that problem aggravated and traction was required to be withdrawn on the next day. It is the grievance of the complainant that while on traction he suffered unbearable pain and same was brought to the notice of the O.P. but no immediate steps were taken.
7. Thereafter O.P. referred the complainant to Doctor by name Dr. Shirish Valsangkar who is stated to be a Neurologist. Complainant has relied upon and referred to the said note of O.P. Dr. Valsangkar then referred the complainant to Neurology Hospital at Pune where various tests were suggested by Dr. Panchwagh attached to the said Hospital requiring the complainant to spend for the test and treatment.
8. After treatment in the said Neurology Hospital the complainant got relief and Doctor of that Hospital, viz., Institute of Neurology opined that the cause of problem of the complainant looked like non-organic in origin recommeding treatment conservatively.
It is in these circumstances, complainant approached the District Forum.
9. It is noticed that O.P. in response to the process of the District Forum appeared and filed his written statement denying he being negligent or otherwise.
10. The fact that complainant approached O.P. and he applied traction has not been disputed. However, it is noticed that O.P. have denied having given note to Dr. Valsangkar referring the complainant.
11. The complainant had relied upon the Reports of the Hospital in support of his case. However, O.P. has not adduced any evidence to meet with the evidence submitted by the complainant. What is more that on the date of hearing of the complaint, O.P. also did not remain present.
12. Consequently, District Forum proceeded to settle the consumer dispute and on consideration of the material placed before it found merits in the complaint of the complainant and has passed the award.
13. In Paragraph 13, District Forum has recorded that O.P. did not adduce any evidence before it.
14. Across the learned Advocate for the O.P. - appellant herein submitted that District Forum has misread the written statement. It was asserted that the District Forum has not thoroughly gone through the written statement of the O.P. and has committed error in arriving at the decision as obtained in the matter herein.
15. We do not find any merit in the submissions as have been made. The judgment of the District Forum, which is running into 12-13 pages is elaborate one and has dealt with the material, which was made available before it by the parties. As the position stands, O.P. not only did not remain present on the date of hearing of the complaint although being aware of the same, he has also not explained in the appeal as to why he did not
