IMPORTANT POINT
Whenever an Allopathic medicine is to be given, it must be sanctioned, verified and seconded by Allopathic Doctor.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The main controversy swirls around the question, “whether, a “quack”, who has no knowledge of medicine and is not even a qualified BAMS, is empowered to administer any allopathic medicine or injections?”. Is it not an inkling towards his negligence?.

2. Having lost the cases before both the fora below, the respondent has filed the present revision petition for quashing the orders rendered by the fora below, wherein the fora below awarded Rs.20,000/- in favour of the patient, Deepesh Kumar Khushwaha, and against OP1. However, the complainants in their complaint have claimed a sum of Rs.19,90,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., and Rs. 10,000/- as legal expenses. The complainants have filed the second revision petition for enhancement of amount. This order shall decide the above-detailed two revision petitions which arise out of the same impugned order dated 16.03.2012, rendered by the State Commission.

3. Sh. Deepesh Kumar Kushwaha, complainant No.,1, the patient, is the son of Smt. Sangeeta Kushwaha, complainant No.2. and Premshankar Kushwaha, Complainant No.3. Complainant Nos. 2& 3 are labourers. On 15.07.2006, Deepesh Kumar Kushwaha fell sick. He was taken to Dr. Gopal Narain Awte, OP-1. OP1 gave some medicines and asked him to come after some time. The complainants went to the OP1 on 17.07.2006, when again, some medicines were prescribed. The patient was repeatedly taken to OP1 till 29.07.2006. The OP1 kept on giving medicines and injections but the complainant’s condition kept deteriorating. The prescription prescribed by OP1 runs as follows :-

“Case : M.P. Patron Fever

Rx

Recochin syp – 10ml/tds

Pyrestral syp – 1 tsf/tds

Inj. Pyregesic 1 ml I/M

Back page 2

Inj. Dexamethasone 1ml

I/M

Case for hospital

Sd of treating doctor

Sign of Dr. Gopal N. Awte”.

4. Thereafter, the patient was taken to Dr. Ravi Sharma, who immediately, informed them to take him to a higher centre. There, they again contacted the doctor who gave another injection due to which the patient became unconscious. It is alleged that, thereafter, the OP gave Rs. 12,000/- and requested the parents of the patient not to make any complaint. On 29.07.2006, the patient was admitted at St. Joseph Hospital, Hoshangabad, in a serious condition. He was treated there, till 04.08.2006, but due to lack of finances, he had to be discharged. The school of the patient collected Rs. 10,403/- for him, after which, further treatment was done. He was later treated at Hamida Hospital and Bombay Hospital, Indore, wherein it transpired that the patient had Japanese Encephalitis for which treatment would continue life-long. According to the complainant, due to wrong diagnosis and wrong treatment of malaria, the mental condition of the patient deteriorated and he has become mentally challenged.

5. The defence set up by the OP1 is this. He admits that he gave treatment for malaria on the basis of the blood report. He submits that there was no error in the diagnosis, the pathology centre, OP2 is liable. He did not take any money from the complainants but prescribed medicines and injections. He contends that after 19.07.2006, he was not in Sahogpur, but had gone to Gujarat and did not tre Zat the child after 19.07.2006. It is alleged that he had been brought in this case to extract money and there was no negligence on his part.

6. The learned counsel for OP vehemently argued that the complainants reside in a remote village. There are no medical facilities in that area. The OP is a B.Sc simpliciter. He does not hold the degree of BAMS. The OP has a certificate of Ayurveda doctor, there is no nexus between the medicine given by him and the above said disease. He gave the medicine(s), as per the report received from Guru Pathology Lab, OP2.

7. Counsel for the OP has cited an authority of the State Commission reported in Dr. H.K. Jain Vs. Sunil., 1999 (3) CPR 504. In this case, the State Commission has held that for proving negligence by a doctor, the compl