Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Gautam Chourdiya, President and Pramod Kumar Varma, Member
Dileshwar Verma and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Sona Bai and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal Nos.87, 88 and 89 of 2024
Decided on 12.12.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Appeal – Services – Medical Negligence – On facts, it is proved by all cogent evidence that he was in profession of medical practitioner and was giving treatment to the people and he had given treatment to the present respondent/complainant also – It is also proved by cogent evidence that the respondent/complainant sustained serious illness due to negligent treatment given by the appellant/opposite party and had to get treatment from some other Higher Center and expend huge amount in treatment – As per statement given in affidavit by the appellant/opposite party he only gave free advice and he did not treat the respondent/complainant but according to the evidence available on record it is clearly proved that he was in profession of medical practitioner and treated people in village area and charge-sheet has been filed against him before Criminal Court also – As per arrest memo he declared himself by profession a Doctor – It is also proved that he is not running any Charitable Trust nor any treatment was given for charity nor any cogent evidence has been given by the appellant/opposite party to prove that he treated the respondent/complainant free of cost – Therefore considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the respondent/complainant is “consumer” of the appellant/opposite party who treated her without having any medical degree or qualification due to which she had to sustain serious illness and had to bear huge medical expenditure for her treatment in some other Higher Center – Also, to discourage such persons from engaging into such practices and jeopardizing the health and safety of other persons in the society as well as to compensation the respondent/complainant adequate compensation needs to be awarded, which has been justifiably done by learned District Commission – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 8 to 17].
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Gautam Chourdiya, President.—This order will govern disposal of all the above three appeals filed under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) arising out of separate impugned orders passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) by which the District Commission partly allowed the complaints and directed the opposite party/appellant to pay compensation as under:—
| Sr. No. | Appeal No. | Complaint Case No. | Date of Impugned Order | The opposite party/appellant was directed to pay |
| 1 | FA/24/87 | CC/21/119 | 27.12.2023 | Medical expenses of Rs.1,79,990/-, compensation for physical, mental and financial loss Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/-. All above amount was directed to be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 08.02.2021 till realization. If the opposite party/appellant fails to pay the above amount within 60 days, the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 08.02.2021. |
| 2 | FA/24/88 | CC/21/118 | 27.12.2023 | Medical expenses of Rs.2,08,931/-, compensation for physical, mental and financial loss Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/-. All above amount was directed to be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 08.02.2021 till realization. If the opposite party/appellant fails to pay the above amount within 60 days, the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 08.02.2021. |
| 3 | FA/24/89 | CC/21/120 | 27.12.2023 | Medical expenses of Rs.2,000/-, compensation for physical, mental and financial loss Rs.10,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/-. All above amount was directed to be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 08.02.2021 till realization. If the opposite party/appellant fails to pay the above amount within 60 days, the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 08.02.2021. |
Feeling aggrieved the opposite party in all the three complaints have come up before us by way of these appeals. As all these appeals involve similar question of law and facts they are being decided by way of this common order and for the purpose of convenience the facts of Appeal No.FA/24/87 are being considered in this common order.
2. The complainant/respondent Smt. Sona Bai went to the opposite party/appellant at Kopedih for treatment of knee pain in the month of August 2019. The opposite party/respondent administered injection locally in the affected area but within 2-3 days of injection, the knee got infected and filled with pus. Looking to the infection the complainant/respondent went to Suraj Nursing Home, Kohka, Bhilai (C.G.) on 04.09.2019 for proper treatment, where she was treated till 19.09.2019, from 30.09.2019 to 02.10.2019 and is continue till date, in which she has spent Rs 6,00,000/-. Due to severe infection and wound in the knee, she is unable to do any work. It was alleged that whatever treatment was given by the opposite party/appellant was wrong and improper for which he is solely responsible, regarding which the complainant/respondent complained to the Police Station Tumdibod in which crime under section 308, 420 of the IPC and section 3 & 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Uphcharya Grih Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapnayen Anugyapan Adhiniyam 2010 was registered vide FIR No.62/2020. It was further averred that the aforesaid acts of the opposite party/appellant comes in the category of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Advocate notice through registered post was sent on 07.09.2020 which was replied on 19.09.2020 with fabricated and false statement. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice complaint was filed against the appellant herein seeking relief of payment of compensation of Rs.6,00,00
Medical Negligence – Negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable & not based on perception.
Shifting of patient – it is proved beyond doubt that it was not the Complainant’s decision of shifting the patient but the Appellant and the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital referred the patient to any ....
Negligence in medical treatment must be proven with concrete evidence, and mere adverse outcomes do not imply failure of care.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
