SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1731

Appeal disposed on: 1 1.03.2026


BEFORE THE I(ARNATAI(A STATE CONSIIMER DISPUTF,S REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCT'IT BENCH-2, BELAGAVI


DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH,2026


CORAM: HON'BLE SRI.RAVI SHANKAR, JI'DICIAL MEMBER

HON'BLE SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI' LADY EMBER


APPEAL NO.558/2013


Dr.V.K.Babaji, A S g / e o d K a ri b s o h u n t a 7 ja 4 p y p e a x B s abaji ...Appellant/s

Akki Alura, Hanagal,Haveri District

[By Srl,scndesh J,Chouta]


Appeal hled on: 20.04.2013


-Versus-

K S u /o m P a r r a a k P as ra h j w D a o l d & d a P m a a ra n s i h @ u r M m a , dara Aged about 2 years, Since minor Represented by his father Prakash Parasappa Harijana @ Ba D la o m d b d e a e m d a a n , i, H a a g n e a d g a a l b , o H u a t v 3 e 2 ri Years, ...Respondent/s1

Indian Medical Association, Karnataka State Branch Frofessional Protection Scheme, IMA House, Alur Venkata Rao Road, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru-560 0 18(R-l - By SrT.H.R.Hlremathad' Adaocate)(R-2 -Dtsmlssed)


SRI. RAVI SHANKAR


(Judicial Member)


69-G \.\- rl SMT. C.BAGEWADI


(Ladg Mernber) Member)hk/

Petitioner Advocates:Sandesh J. Chouta ,Respondent Advocate: Krishna Swamy K

ORDER

BY HON'BLE SRI s JUDICIAL ER

The Appellant/Opposite party 1n complaint No.33/2012 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Haveri which directed this appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000 /_ alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization and further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/_towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards ritigation expenses.

The gist of the complaint is that, one Mr.prajwal, aged about two yea'rs arong with his father went to the appe,ant,s hospital with a history of cough and fever. After testing, this appellant had injected medicine to both hips, immediately after injection, the said patient Mr'Prajwar suffered pain and ross of control over the legs, he was not able to walk and even he was unable to stand, immediately the same was informed' whereas the doctor tord that the defect may be due to polio and is not due to injection given. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant approached the District commission alleging medicar negrigence' The District commission after detailed adjudication had t a h rr a iv t e d th f e or r e p a i , s rm e c n l e t a of r R m s. e 2 d .0 ic 0 a la t k n h e s g l t i o g e th n e c e c o o m n p la th in e an p t a an r d t o no f t ic th e e d appellant/doctor and also directed to pay Rs. 10,0O0/_ towards mental agony and Rs.5,O00/- as litigation expenses, against which the appellant before ttris Commission.

Upon perusal of the memorandum of appeal, we noticed, there is no any specific contention taken by the appellant, the reason for losing the control over the legs have not put forth. The entire pleadings in the appeal memorandum simply say that the order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance witll law and there is no any negligence on this appellant. Except averments, no materials placed before this Commission to show that there is no any medical negligence.

On the other hand, upon perusal of the documents even on observation of the respondent who was present before this Commission, we noticed the appellant/doctor had injected some medicines to the hips which resulted in injury to the entire legs itself the patient lost his control over the legs itself. There is negligence on the part of doctor himself while injecting the medicine; the injection has to be given to the muscles of the thigh not to the nerve when the nerye was damaged automatically the control over the legs going to be lost. The District Commission after verification of the entire records had arrived for pa5rment of the above said amount. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law; it is clear case of medical negtgence. No valid grounds urged by the appellant to set aside the order passed by the District commission. No interference required.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.

The impugned order dated 22.3.2013 passed by the District consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Haveri in cc.No.33/20 l2 is confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District consumer commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as wel as concerned District Commission.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top