The main legal point established in the judgment is the deficiency in services by the medical practitioner due to the administration of the injection on the wrong part of the body, resulting in permanent disability.

Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President—Complainant is a married young man about 30 years of age. He was owner of an Auto Rickshaw and used to ply the same to earn for his livelihood.

2. O.Ps. are medical practitioners being husband and wife — both having degrees in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (in short B.A.M.S.) and who have got registered under the Indian Medicine Council Act, 1970 which is Central Statute and the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners’ Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act and the State Act, respectively for brevity’s sake).

3. At the outset, we wish to state that although the claim herein is based on alleged negligence on the part of O.Ps. in giving treatment to the complainant as medical practitioners, which was accompanied with administering “Voveran” injection, which is Allopathic drug, the complainant, as would be pointed out hereinafter, has also taken up the plea in addition to the said plea raised that O.Ps. in particular O.P. No. 1 being negligent in administering him i.e., the Voveran injection. It is pointed out that, as the O.Ps. were registered medical practitioners of the “Ayurvedic System of Medicine”, having qualifications of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.) and that being so, O.Ps. were and are not qualified as also authorised to prescribe Allopathic drugs as also were not possessed with the needed skill to treat the complainant with the Allopathic drugs, as done which resulted in causing serious problems to the complainant as disability of permanent nature to his left arm above elbow.

4. The above plea as raised, which has very wide ramification affecting and concerning all those medical practitioners in this State holding degrees of B.A.M.S. and registered as such under the Central Act and State Act, that the inevitable followed and the Intervenor, named above, viz., B.A.M.S. Graduates’ Association of Maharashtra State, sought intervention in this matter by making an application, with the plea, that the decision of this Commission on the said issue going adverse to the O.Ps. herein, would vitally affect them i.e., all the medical practitioners holding B.A.M.S. degrees and registered as such under the Central Act and State Act, like the O.Ps. herein and, strongly urged and pleaded that they be heard. It was stated by the Intervenor that there are nearly 30 to 32 thousand medical practitioners in the State, registered under the Central Act and State Act, holding B.A.M.S. degrees as that of O.Ps.

5. Therefore, considering the great magnitude and possible repercussion on the Members of the Intervenor, we thought it appropriate, in fairness and in the interest of justice to afford them audience and the President of the Intevenor was allowed to make submissions, who has, placed before us, relevant data, such as, circulars/notifications issued by the State Government, under the State Act and under other ancillary Statutes, including Bombay Drugs Control Act, 1959, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, etc., curricula prescribed for the B.A.M.S. degree, etc. Reference is also made to a pending writ petition filed in High Court, Mumbai, to counter the plea as aforesaid advanced by and on behalf of the complainant. It was asserted and stressed that it is permissible for B.A.M.S. degree-holders to practise both ayurvedic as well as Allopathic systems of medicine.

6. Before we dwell over the factual matrix of this matter, we wish to state and clarify, at initial stage of this judgment, that, knowing limitations that we have particularly in view of nature of the claim in the consumer dispute herein and the Statutory provisions viz., Consumer Protection Act, 1986, under which this forum is functioning which prescribes procedure to be applied under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for resolution of the claim, viz., of summary nature, to ensure speedy disposal of the claim herein, we propose to dilate over the said plea, prima facie to find out whether or not, the O.Ps.