IMPORTANT POINT
Sum of Rs.14000/- and Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation awarded by Commission not on account of compensation for medical negligence.

These two revision petitions, RP No.4294/2007 and RP No.1146/2008, have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.11.2007, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (for short ‘the State Commission’) in two appeals, Appeal No.570/2007, “Dharam Bir Bhatia versus Dr. Anjali Dave Tiwari,” and Appeal No.604/2007 “Dr. Anirudha Aggarwal vs. Dharam Bir Bhatia”, vide which appeal No.570/2007 was dismissed, but appeal No.604/2007 was partly accepted and the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur on 07.03.2007, allowing a sum of Rs.28,000/- to the complainant was modified and the said sum was revised to Rs.17,000/- including Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Dharam Bir Bhatia filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that for the dental treatment of his dependant daughter Nitu, he took advice from OP-1/respondent Dr. Anjali Dave Tiwari and then took her to respondent-2/OP-2 Dr. Anirudh Agarwal, who started the treatment in May 2003 and continued till August 2005. He paid different sums of money to OP-2 from time to time and in total, he paid a sum of Rs.14,000/- to him. However, the treatment given by the OP-2 to his daughter was incomplete, insufficient and deficient, due to which his daughter had to undergo a lot of pain and harassment. Her health deteriorated day by day and physical growth was also affected. It has been alleged that Ms. Nitu became like a skeleton due to the gross negligence of OP-2. There was, therefore, deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Doctor. It has also been alleged that the conduct of OP-2 was at the instigation of OP-1 and there was a conspiracy between the two. The complainant was, therefore, entitled for compensation from both the doctors. The complainant also stated that if the said Doctors were not capable of treating his daughter, they should have stated so in the very beginning, rather than playing with her life.

3. The complaint was resisted by OP-1 Dr. Anjali Dave Tiwari by filing reply before the District Forum, saying that she had not charged any amount as fees for consultation and advice given by her to the complainant. The OP-2, Dr. Anirudh Agarwal stated that when the patient was brought before him, he found her teeth to be in disorder and carrying some bulge, and after seeing them, he expressed a view that the chances of fixing up the teeth at that age were very few. However, he started the treatment with the consent of the patient.

4. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, dismissed the complaint against OP-1/respondent No.1 doctor, saying that Ms. Nitu was not the client of OP-1 Doctor and she had not charged any fee from her. However, the District Forum allowed the complaint against the OP-2 Doctor and ordered him to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation, the total being Rs.28,000/-. Being aggrieved against this order, two appeals were filed before the State Commission, one by the complainant and the other by OP-2, Dr. Anirudh Agarwal. Both the appeals were decided vide impugned order dated 27.11.2007. The appeal of the complainant was dismissed, but the appeal filed by OP-2 Doctor was partly allowed and the amount of compensation for mental agony was reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.14,000/-. Being aggrieved against this order, both the complainant and the OP-2 Doctor are before us by way of the present revision petitions.

5. During hearing before us, written submissions were filed by the complainant as well as both the OP Doctors. The complainant submitted a written request, seeking permission to file synopsis of his arguments, copies of documents, other related material, copies of judgments and requested that he should be exempted from personal appearance. His request was granted vide order dated 12.12.201