IMPORTANT POINT
It is necessary for complainant to lead independent evidence to prove case set out by him.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant Sh. B. Krishnamurthy approached the District Forum with a complaint alleging that his wife late Smt. Santhi Priya, aged 53 years and a known diabetic patient, visited opposite party no. 2 Dr. K. Manohar, proprietor of opposite party no. 1 Multi Super Speciality Dental Hospital on 21.09.2006 as an out-patient and an OPD ticket was issued to her. It was further alleged in the complaint that opposite party no. 2 extracted two teeth of the deceased which lead to complications resulting in her death. It was also stated in the complaint that the patient had again consulted opposite party no. 2 and another prescription was given to her at that time though the said prescription did not bear any date. Alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, compensation to the extent of Rs. 15 lacs was claimed.

2. The opposite party contested the complaint primarily on the ground that the wife of the complainant never consulted him on 21.09.2006 and he did not extract her teeth. The opposite party also denied the allegations that he had advised X-ray to the deceased and later referred her case to ENT Surgeon. He also denied having given any prescription to her.

3. The complainant had filed, before the District Forum, the photocopy of a cash receipt no. 552 purporting to be dated 25.09.2006 and issued by Padmavati X-ray Clinic to Smt. Santhi Priya. It was recorded in the said photocopy of the receipt that the patient had been referred by Dr. Manohar B.D.S. Since the petitioner had disputed the authenticity of the said document, the District Forum summoned Padmavati X-ray Clinic to produce the original cash receipt book containing the receipt no. 552 dated 25.09.2006 for X-ray given in the name of Smt. Santhi Priya. In response to the said notice, Padmavati X-ray Clinic produced the carbon copy of receipt no. 552 purporting to be dated 25.09.2006. However, said carbon copy did not bear the endorsement (Ref; Dr. Manohar B.D.S.). It was also noted by the District Forum, when the book containing the aforesaid carbon copy was produced before it, that receipt no. 551 bore the date 25.10.2006 whereas receipt no. 553 bore the date 27.10.2006. In these circumstances, the District Forum, in our view was fully justified in concluding that said cash receipt purporting to be dated 25.09.2006 had been obtained with a view to file before the said forum. Otherwise, receipt no. 551 could not have been of 25.10.2006. It appears to us that receipt no. 551 was obtained by the complainant in connivance with Padmavati X-ray Clinic which was persuaded to put the date of 25.09.2006 on the document. This obviously was done since the wife of the complainant had already expired on 04.10.2006. Since the endorsement of reference by Dr. Manohar BDS did not appear on the carbon copy produced before the District Forum, it is also obvious that a tampered photocopy of the said receipt was filed by the complainant, before the District Forum, in order to create evidence of treatment by the said doctor. This clearly shows that the complainant filed manipulated record before the District Forum, which by itself could disentitle him to any relief.

4. The State Commission while reversing the order of the District Forum, accepted the contention of the complainant that the receipts for October, 2006 were summoned from Padmavati X-ray Clinic and the receipt for September, 2006 was not summoned. We, however, find from a perusal of the notice issued to Padmavati X-ray Clinic that not only the receipt number, but also the date (25.09.2006) was given in the said notice. Had there been some other receipt bearing number 552 and dated 25.09.2006, Padmavati X-ray Clinic would have produced the carbon copy of that receipt and not the carbon copy they actually produced. When the aforesaid document was produced before the District Forum, no request was made by the complainant to direct Padmavati X-ray Clinic to produce the receipts issued b