The burden of proof in medical negligence cases lies with the complainant to establish a prima facie case, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT

AVM J RAJENDRA AVSM VSM (Retd.), PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 (the “Act”) against the Order of U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission („State Commission‟) dated 07.11.2019 in First Appeal No. 1075/2008 allowing the appeal of the Opposite Party (OP) and setting aside the decision of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Allahabad („District Forum‟) dated 03.05.2008 in CC No. 284/2005.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the Complainant, are that at about 01:00 AM on 24.08.2004, she brought her daughter to the OP‟s nursing home, with complaints of stomach pain, fever and an intestinal ulcer. She deposited Rs.5,000 towards initial treatment. The patient was admitted to the OP hospital for treatment. It is the allegation of the Complainant that, after administering her daughter a glucose injection, the Complainant was told to deposit an additional sum of Rs.12,000 on the ground that her daughter required an urgent surgical procedure. As the Complainant was unable to furnish the said amount immediately, her daughter was thereafter administered a life-expired glucose injection and a poisonous injection, which allegedly led to rapid deterioration in her daughter‟s medical condition, ultimately resulting in her death in the morning hours of 25.08.2004. The Complainant further alleged that her request to meet OP-1 to ascertain the reasons was denied. Further, despite her repeated demands, she was not provided with the treatment records or any related information. Aggrieved by the alleged deficiency in service and medical negligence, she approached the Consumer Forum.

4. On being issued notice, OP filed its written statement, and admitted that the Complainant‟s daughter, Ms Rubi, was admitted to its nursing home on 24.08.2004 and that Rs.5,000 was deposited towards her treatment. However, it was contended that the Complainant failed to deposit the additional amount of Rs.12,000 and to arrange two units of blood required for her daughter‟s treatment and she voluntarily chose to take the patient out of the nursing home. The OPs further contended that a refund of Rs.4,560 was issued to the Complainant at the time of discharge of the patient. The OPs asserted that the patient was alive when she left the premises. OP denied any liability for the events that occurred thereafter and asserted that no act of medical negligence was committed by the doctors attending to the patient. It was submitted that the allegations levelled by the Complainant were based on incorrect facts, and accordingly, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 03.05.2008, dismissed the complaint with the following finding:

“12. The complainant proved her complaint by way of affidavit and proved that she had deposited Rs. 5,000/- in the nursing home and proper treatment was done due to not meeting the demand of additional Rs. 12,000/-. The O.P. done the negligence due to which Kumari Rubi died. Certainly the O.P. damaged the holy profession of the doctor. Doctor is treated as God who gives life but O.P. made the medical negligence which resulted the casual death of Kumari Rubi and they O.P. found guilty for the medical negligence.

13. The case citation AIR 1996, Supreme Court Cases Page no. 550, titled as Indian Medical Association Versus B.P. Sangha. According to this citation Opposite Parties are found guilty are medical negligence due to which K