IMPORTANT POINT
In a complaint alleging deficiency in service on treatment to the patient given by a chemist wherein patient died when there was no allegation in compliant had any evidence if any money was paid to chemist, complaint could not be said to be a consumer and complaint not maintainable.

S.N. Aggarwal, President—Hardip Singh appellant is running a chemist shop under the name and style of Sandhu Medical Stores, village Wadala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur for the last 4-5 years. He was also giving medical treatment to the patients. On 28.4.2002 at about 5.30 a.m., Mahinder Kaur respondent went to the shop of the appellant for taking medicines for her husband Jarnail Singh (in short “the patient”) who was having pain in his stomach. The appellant instead of giving medicine to the respondent advised her to bring the patient to his shop. The respondent went back home and brought her husband to the shop of the appellant for medical treatment as advised by the appellant.

2. It was further pleaded that the appellant administered two injections in the body of the patient. Immediately thereafter, the patient became senseless. The respondent made enquiry from the appellants and she was told that the patient was sleeping and he was feeling well.

3. It was further pleaded that even after the lapse of three hours, the patient did not come to his senses. The respondent, her son Gurmej Singh and one Satnam Singh were present there. They again enquired from the appellant that the patient had not regained consciousness, on which, the appellant hired a Van and suggested to the respondent to take the patient to Batala as he was in serious condition. Before the patient could be shifted in the Van, he died in the clinic/shop of the appellant. When the patient was taken to Civil Hospital, Batala, the doctor declared him dead vide endorsement No.1362 dated 28. 4.2002. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondent filed a complaint against him in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short “the District Forum”) for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000.

4. The appellant filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellant was having a medical store under the name and style of M/s Sandhu Medical Store in village Wadala Granthian, Tehsil Batala for the last 6-7 years. However, it was denied if he was running the practice of medical practitioner. The appellant had passed the course of D-Pharmacy and under this licence, he was running the medical store. He was only selling the medicines on the prescription of the doctors.

5. It was denied if the respondent had ever come to his shop on 28.4.2002 at 5.30 p.m. or if she had brought the patient to his shop or if he was medically treated by the appellant. Rather the appellant never treated any co-villager or any person of the nearby locality. It was denied if the patient had died because of any medical negligence on the part of the appellant.

6. It was further pleaded that the story set up by the appellant was frivolous and concocted. The present complaint has been filed against the appellant at the instance of Sulakhan Singh, Sarpanch of village Wadala Grandhian due to political reasons and to harass the appellant. The appellant has no knowledge about the cause of death of Jarnail Singh patient. It was denied if there was any medical negligence on the part of the appellant. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

7. The respondent filed her affidavit Ex. C1 and the affidavit of Amrik Singh as Ex. C2. The respondent also proved documents Ex. C3 and Ex. C4. On the other hand, the appellant proved documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R3. He also filed his own affidavit Ex. R4 and the affidavit of Manjit Singh as Ex. R5.

8. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs. 500 vide impugned order dated 3.4.2003 and the appellant was directed to make payment of Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondent with interest @ 9% p.a.

9. Hence, the appeal.

10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that he had never treated Jarnail Singh patient medically as the appellant was not a medical practit