IMPORTANT POINTS
1. If a person who has no education in medicine dispenses medicines and administers injection to sick person that by itself will be a case of gross negligence and deficiency in rendering service.
2. Interference in concurrent finding of fact not justified, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, unless same shown to be perverse.

V. K. Jain, Presiding Member — The petitioner No.1 Mohar Singh who is the son of petitioner No.2 Smt. Jasoda, was suffering from jaundice and, therefore, was taken by his mother to the respondent/opposite party for treatment. The respondent/opposite party was allegedly giving medicines and administering injections to the sick persons visiting him in the village of the complainants, though he had not even studied medicine. According to the complainant a sum of Rs.165/- was charged by the respondent from them for treatment and an injection was given to the child who had a reaction to the said injection and started trembling. On the advice of the respondent he was taken to Gangapur from, where he was taken to Jaipur and admitted in J.K. Loan Hospital from 27-04-2005 to 04-05-2005. This is also the case of the complainant that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was spent on the treatment of the complainant No.1 Shri Mohar Singh. The complainants approached the concerned District Forum seeking reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on the treatment of the complainant No.1 along with compensation.

2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent/opposite party on the ground that he was not practicing medicine and he had not given any injection to the complainant No.1.

3. Vide order dated 20-09-2007 the District Forum directed the respondent/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation inclusive of the cost of the treatment to the complainants.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the opposite party approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 21-08-2009 the State Commission upheld the finding of the District Forum that the opposite party/respondent had actually administered an injection to complainant No.1 but reduced the quantum of compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Both the parties are aggrieved from order passed by the State Commission and consequently have filed separate revision petitions challenging the said order.

5. It is an admitted position before us that the respondent/opposite party has not studied medicine and is not authorized to practice as a medical practitioner. The disputed question of fact before us is as to whether the opposite party had treated the complainant No.1 and given an injection to him on 25-04-2005 or not. A concurrent finding of fact has been returned in this regard by the District Forum as well as the State Commission holding that he had actually administered an injection to the complainant No.1 and that he was practicing as a medical practitioner in the village of the complainants. We will not be justified in interfering with the aforesaid concurrent finding of fact, in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction, unless the same is shown to be perverse. On a perusal of the record we find that not only the mother of the complainant No.1, but a number of other villagers filed affidavits stating therein that the respondent/opposite party was representing to be a doctor and treating several patients travelling from village to village. The complainants filed affidavits of Kishorilal, Kripal Singh, Bhanwaroo Khan, Dashrath Singh, Rasheed Khan and Ramjilal Sharma three of whom are residents of village Tamolipura and three of them are residents of Badh Salempur. The complainants are also residents of village Badh Salempur. Thus, affidavits of three residents of the same village and three residents of the nearby village Tamolipura were thus filed by the complainants in support of their case. All the six deponents clearly stated in their respective affidavits that Rajendra @ Raju was practicing as a doctor in the shop of Piare Lal for last 7-8 years and was dispensing medicines and administering injections. They also stated that he was travelling from village to village, dispensing medicines and administering injections. The affidavits further show that when the father of the complainant No.1 lodged an FIR with the p