IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for foot drop due to neural injury upheld.”

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant (minor Yogesh, through his natural guardian Sumer Chand, hereinafter referred to as the “patient”) under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 20.07.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1431 of 2006, wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”).

2. The instant Revision Petition raises a question whether the alleged injection was given by Dr. D.C. Mittal (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 1” was the cause of injury – foot drop to the Complainant – patient.

3. Brief facts that master Yogesh (the Complainant, hereinafter referred to as the ‘patient’) about 7 years of age approached Dr. D. C. Mittal for the treatment of fever. The Opposite Party administered one injection in the left gluteal region by which the patient became unconscious and his left leg became paralysed. The patient was unable to walk. Immediately on the same day, the patient’s father took him on the same day to Dr. A.V.S. Ravi, the Child Specialist, who diagnosed it as left foot drop and treated the patient till 15.05.2004. Thereafter, he consulted several doctors who diagnosed it as foot drop due to post injection injury. The patient was brought to AIIMS, New Delhi on 24.05.2004 at Neurology Department and thereafter, at TDTR DAV Institute of Physiotherapy, it was again diagnosed as foot drop due to injection palsy. Thereafter, in June, 2004 he approached Goyal Hospital, Jagadhri, Aggarwal Orthopedic Centre, Jagadhri for further treatment. Being aggrieved the patient filed a Complaint through his guardian before the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri.

4. The Opposite Parties filed their respective written versions and denied the allegations. They prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

5. The District Forum after appraisal of evidence from both the sides, partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay jointly and severally Rs. 4 lakh to the Complainant. The District Forum observed as below:

4. xxxxxxx

The original register seen at the time of argument prove that the register are false and fabricated one and draw the attention of this Forum towards the OPD register in which on the last page the date has been mentioned 7.5.2004 and last page is refixed with the Jilt (Cover) and the next register start from 8.5.2004 which was also refixed with the cover (Jilt) and the OPD of 9.5.2004 and 10.5.2004 has not been shown knowingly which shows the manipulation and tempering with the register and further draw the attention of this Forum towards the date of OPD 4.12.2003 and after which the date has been mentioned 25.12.2003, meaning thereby the doctor was not present in the hospital from 5.12.2003 to 24.12.2003 and in the date 4.12.2003 the patient have been seen by the respondent doctor about 225 patient in a day whereas in subsequent day or in the following day he never seen more than 10 to 15 patient. It shows that the OPD Register are maintained only to bluff this forum and to falsify the claim of complainant. No reliance can place on such like register which are not insequences and are fabricated one and draw the attention of this Forum towards the authority 1971 C.A.R. 296 (S.C.). Appreciation of evidence-courts have to rely more on human probabilities than on assertions of witnesses. When it is proved that complainant is the neighbour as admitted by the respondent doctor himself and respondent doctor himself admitted that he angry upon the Complainant as such there was no any anmity of complainant with the respondent doctor so there is no embiguity regarding the relationship which is proved on the file as