ORDER

S.N. Aggarwal, President - It is a sad case where a budding brilliant child has died before blossoming but the question to be determined in this case is if the child has died due to medical negligence on the part of the appellant.

2. This order will dispose of three appeals, namely, First Appeal No. 1410 of 2005 (Dr. Tej Pal Singh Sandhu v. Gurmit Kaur and Others), First Appeal No. 1438 of 2005 (Gurmit Kaur and Another v. Dr. Tej Pal Singh Sandhu and Others), and First Appeal No. 1473 of 2005 (Dr. Tej Pal Singh Sandhu and Another v. Gurmit Kaur and Another), as all these appeals were directed against the same impugned order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum"). Facts are taken from First Appeal No. 1410 of 2005 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.

3. Gurmit Kaur respondent No. 1 and her husband Lakha Singh respondent No. 2 (in short "the respondents") were the parents of Gurjant Singh (in short "the injured"). On 7.2.2003 at about 2.00 p.m. the respondents and the injured were standing near the road in village Nawan Pind. Some other respectable persons of the village were also present there. In the meantime, one new car mark Ikon without number belonging to Bhagat Ford Company being driven by Avtar Singh reached there and the said car hit the injured who was standing near the brink of the road leading to Mehta Road.

4. It was further pleaded that in this accident the injured had received multiple injuries. He was admitted in the Sandhu Hospital owned by the appellant. The appellant asked the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,500. This amount was deposited by the respondents but the appellant had not issued any receipt for it. The appellant was also running laboratory in the hospital premises which was known as 'sandhu Clinical Laboratory . The appellant got x-rayed the injuries of Gurjant Singh injured and charged a sum of Rs. 2,070 as x-ray charges. The respondents had also deposited one unit of blood on the asking of the appellant for being administered to the injured. The appellant assured the respondents that the injured would be all right and there was no fracture on his head. The x-ray film which was given by the appellant to the respondents in fact did not belong to the injured.

5. It was further pleaded that on 8.2.2003 the condition of the injured became serious. The respondents contacted the appellant but the appellant failed to provide any facility to the injured. Rather the appellant pushed out the respondents along with the injured from his hospital. The respondents asked the appellant to give them receipts of the payments received but the appellant refused to do so. Rather he threatened the respondents that he was an influential person and the respondents were at liberty to do anything which they liked.

6. It was further pleaded that thereafter the injured was brought to Grover Hospital, Cheel Mandi, Amritsar and the injured was got admitted in the said hospital. Dr. P.S. Grover, Incharge of Grover Hospital advised MRI test. It was got conducted on 8.2.2003 in Nijjar Scan and Diagnostic Centre, Court Road, Amritsar. Dr. Vijinder Arora, M.D. conducted the M.R.I. test and he gave the opinion as under:

"Impression : MR FINDINGS REVEAL MULTIPLE HAEMORRHAGIC CONTUSIONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE SUGGESTIVE OF DIFFUSE AXONAL INJURY."

7. It was further pleaded that after the MRI report Dr. Grover informed the respondents that the injured had got head injuries which were serious and the injured was in critical condition. The injured died on 9.2.2003 at about 3.00 p.m. for which the death certificate was issued by Dr. P.S. Grover.

8. It was further pleaded that the appellant had received an amount of Rs. 7,500 from the respondents but he failed to issue the receipt for the same. He had also charged x-ray fee separately. The appellant was not having any valid degree for conducting the operation for the head injury as he was not