Mr. Justice Chaudhary S.N. Mishra, President—Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant before us in this appeal which arises out of the judgment and order dated 6.5.2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 185/2003 on the file of the District Forum, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the complainant has been non-suited with respect to the claim sought for in the complaint petition. The respondents 1 and 2 are the Raj Hospital, Main Road, Ranchi and Director Sri Yogesh Gambhir whereas the respondents 3 and 4 are the doctors attached with respondent No. 1 Raj Hospital.

2. The short facts giving rise to the disputes are that on 6.3.2003 at about 8.30 p.m. son of the complainant namely Navin Kr. Sharma, having pain in his stomach followed by repeated vomiting, was taken for treatment in the respondent Raj Hospital. The patient was admitted in the hospital at 10.45 p.m. on the same day. Jr. doctor, Dr. J. Nath called Dr. D. Mohan over phone who is the Consultant In charge. The said Doctor Mohan prescribed certain medicines on phone. Dr. J. Nath also left the patient without watching the result of the medicines. The condition of the patient did not improve even after administration of medicines. The complainant requested the hospital Management to call Dr. D. Mohan. However, after several repeated requests, Jr. doctor came at about 12.15 midnight and again talked to Dr. D. Mohan. The respondent Dr. D. Mohan, even then, did not visit the patient and again prescribed medicines on phone. The medicines so administered did not give any relief rather the condition of the patient started deteriorating. The patient was writhing with acute pain. Again a request was made to the hospital Management to call Dr. D. Mohan but for the reasons best known to them neither Dr. D. Mohan nor any doctor examined the patient. However, on the following day i.e., 7.3.2003, a junior doctor on a routine way examined the patient at 9.30 a.m. Respondent Dr. D. Mohan for the first time examined the patient in a routine visit at 11.30 a.m. and advised for ultrasound test and X-ray. Dr. D. Mohan saw the ultrasound report. The first part of the report mentioned that USG “mild dilasis in left kidney” and the second part of the report showed “Ascites minimal plural effusion is present (right)”. According to the complainant, doctor D. Mohan relied only on the first part of the report but unfortunately, he overlooked the 2nd part which was suggestive of the fact that the patient is suffering from pancreatitis. The patient was suffering from pancreatitis, even then, he was never administered any medicines for pancreatitis during his stay and treatment in the hospital. On 7.3.2003 the patient was shifted to ICCU at 9.25 p.m. Even after shifting the patient to ICCU, no life saving medicine was given to the patient and ultimately the patient died at 9.45 p.m., resulting filing of the instant complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On being noticed, the respondents appeared and filed their response denying any negligence and/or laches on their part. However, admission of the patient in the hospital as well as the documents relied upon by the complainant has not been denied. It is further alleged that they took all possible steps in order to save the life of the patient. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. The District Forum, on consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint as stated above.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/complainant has vehemently challenged the order and submitted that the Court below without appreciating the materials available on record has passed the impugned order. According to the learned Counsel right from the time of admission, proper medical care has not been provided to the patient. It is submitted that when management of the patient is not possible at home, then only the patient is brought to the hospital in emergency condition. Acco