NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
REVISION PETITION NO. 2629 OF 2011
Jassi Hospital & Heart Care Centre
College Road, Fazilka
Dr. Yashpaul Jassi … Petitioner
1. Bhupinder Singh Brar S/o Shri Chanan Singh
R/o Radha Swami Colony, Fazilka
2. Nirvair Singh S/o Bhupinder Singh Brar
R/o Radha Swami Colony, Fazilka
District Ferozepur … Respondents
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBERS
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamleshwar Gumbar, Advocate
Pronounced on : 4th January, 2012
O R D E R
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
1. Jassi Hospital & Heart Care Centre, College Road, Fazilka, who were the opposite party no.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur, have filed this revision petition seeking to challenge the order dated 6th of April, 2011 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh passed in First Appeal No. 1452 of 2005. The operative part of the said order reads as under :-
“51. In view of the discussions held above, we reach the conclusion that there was no medical negligence committed by respondent No. 1 in treating the patient. It was the heart failure which led to the death of the patient. However, respondent No. 1 has committed unfair trade practice in employing the untrained and unqualified staff in his hospital. In these circumstances, the appellants are awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.50,000/- which will be payable by respondent No. 1 alone.”
2. Since both the District Forum as well as the State Commission, on appreciation of the evidence adduced by both sides by their detailed orders have arrived at the conclusion that the line of treatment adopted by the treating doctors cannot be said to be a deviation from normal medical practice and, therefore there was no medical negligence; there is no need for us to go into the details of the treatment regimen followed by the doctors, especially when the complainant has not challenged the findings before us. The limited question that remains for adjudication is as to whether the petitioner/opposite party no.1/Jassi Hospital & Heart Care Centre had indeed employed certain staff to take care of its patients, who were not fully qualified and trained to be entrusted with the care of such patients.
3. Suffice it to say that petitioner/opposite party no.1 has not denied the allegation of the complainant that RajinderSingh @ Raja was working as the compounder in its hospital. In the affidavit, filed by the said Rajinder Singh, albeit before the State Commission, he has deposed that injection Dopamine was administered by him on the deceased patient. Further, in the absence of any denial/rebuttal by the petitioner/opposite party no.1 that the qualification ofRajinder Singh was merely that of a 10+1 and that he had no qualification or training of a compounder, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner/opposite party no.1 had engaged the unqualified and untrained RajinderSingh and had entrusted him with the care of the patients. Mere claim by Dr. Jassi that he had administered the injection Dopamine, on the face of deposition made by said Rajinder Singh cannot be believed. The State Commission has rightly discarded the technical plea of the petitioner/opposite party no.1 that the affidavit of RajinderSingh could not have been admitted at the stage of appeal.
4. We find that the State Commission has very correctly taken the view that proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being summary in nature, strict adherence to the provisions of the Evidence Act would not be applicable. What would be of relevance in the dispensation of substantive justice in a case of this nature would depend more on the preponderance of evidence and probability. In this case, para 43 to para 46 deal at length the evidence on the engagement of untrained/unqualified staff by the petitioner/opposite party no.1/Jassi Hospital & Heart Care Centre and, therefore, we do not find any merit in this revision petition, which calls for interference in our supervisory jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. The revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed, however, with no order as to cost.
( R. C. JAIN, J. )
- MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE= While deciding the cases of medical negligence, it would be appropriate to keep in mind that a Doctor neither undertakes that he will positively cure the patient nor does he undertake to use the highest possible degree of skill. In t (advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com)
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Medical Negligence: Deficiency in service – Doctor performing radical surgery without obtaining consent from patient resulting in removal of her reproductive organs – Compensation – Complaint rejected by National Consumer (advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com)