IMPORTANT POINT
Doctor cannot be held accountable for acts of complainant.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Chhattisgarh dated 20.05.2016 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent/opposite party, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed consumer complaint in the District Forum concerned alleging that his sister-in-law Smt. Purnima Devi was admitted for treatment in opposite party hospital on 24.1.2014. As patient was critical she was kept for treatment in ICU from 24.1.2014 to 29.1.2014 when she was discharged although she was unwell. Smt. Purnima Devi died on 30.1.2014. According to the petitioner/complainant during her treatment Smt. Purnima Devi was administered expired medicines procured from the pharmacy of the opposite party hospital.

3. The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed the written statement controverting the allegations of using expired medicines for the treatment of Smt. Purnima Devi. Opposite party pleaded that Smt. Purnima Devi was brought to the opposite party hospital on the night of 24.1.2014 in a critical condition. She was, therefore, admitted in ICU and her treatment was started immediately. On 29.1.204 a family member of the deceased Smt. Purnima Devi got her discharged against medical advice. According to the opposite party, best possible treatment was given to Smt. Purnima Devi and no expired medicine was given nor any expired disposable was used during treatment.

4. Learned District Forum on consideration of pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party as under:-

“a. Opposite Party no.1 institution/hospital, to pay Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) as compensation for mental agony and compensation under all accounts to the complainant.

b. Opposite Party no.1 institution/hospital, also to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the above amount from the complaint date 05/12/2014 till the payment date to the complainant.

c. Opposite party no.1 institution/hospital, to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant).”

5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent/opposite party approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission Chhattisgarh vide impugned order allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

6. Learned Shri Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the plea that the order is based upon erroneous appreciation of the facts. Expanding on the argument learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through copy of sales summary report allegedly given by the opposite party alongwith the bill of treatment of Smt. Purnima Devi and submitted that on perusal of the said sales summary report it is obvious that some of the disposables used in the treatment of Smt. Purnima Devi and some of the injectables/medicines given to her were already expired. It is contended that State Commission has totally ignored the aforesaid sales summary report as such the impugned order is not sustainable.

7. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record. On perusal of record we find that the opposite party has also produced in evidence the computerized sales summary report of the medicines and disposables used for the treatment of Smt. Purnima Devi. As per the sales summary report produced by the complainant no expired medicine or disposables was used in the treatment of Smt. Purnima Devi. Thus, the question which required determination by the Fora below was as to which of the sales summary report was correct.

8. On perusal of the order of the State Commission we find that in order to resolve that controversy the State Commission has relied upon the letter addressed to