w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ram Nihal & Others v/s Dr. C.G. Agarwal Medical Officer Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals


Company & Directors' Information:- S V S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TG2007PTC052534

Company & Directors' Information:- D D HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2009PTC073765

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND E HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KL2003PTC016562

Company & Directors' Information:- ASSOCIATED INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109AS2000PTC006031

Company & Directors' Information:- R R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100HR2011PTC042705

Company & Directors' Information:- ASSOCIATED HOSPITALS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U85110AS1989PLC003238

Company & Directors' Information:- K P S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TZ1994PTC004918

Company & Directors' Information:- B R S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN1988PTC016237

Company & Directors' Information:- V H M HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2009PTC073497

Company & Directors' Information:- D B R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TG2003PTC041648

Company & Directors' Information:- S M R HOSPITALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U85110DL2005PTC143152

Company & Directors' Information:- M S R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110AP1994PTC017731

Company & Directors' Information:- M M HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U85110UP1993PTC015371

Company & Directors' Information:- K C HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110PB2012PTC035880

Company & Directors' Information:- B M HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2005PTC058062

Company & Directors' Information:- K. R. MEMORIAL HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100RJ2019PTC065542

Company & Directors' Information:- S A HOSPITALS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110MH2002PLC136697

Company & Directors' Information:- M. B. HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100HR2010PTC041489

Company & Directors' Information:- M G M I HOSPITALS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85195KA2010PTC052058

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND D HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2002PTC117618

Company & Directors' Information:- M. R. HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110UP1995PTC018165

Company & Directors' Information:- D D ASSOCIATED PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC026329

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HOSPITALS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U85110HP1992PTC012651

Company & Directors' Information:- V K R HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110TG2011PTC075009

Company & Directors' Information:- V P HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2011PTC220548

Company & Directors' Information:- G S HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100AP2014PTC094902

Company & Directors' Information:- MEMORIAL HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000AP2016PTC104648

Company & Directors' Information:- ASSOCIATED HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110KA1989PTC010316

    Revision Petition No. 2330 of 2012

    Decided On, 03 April 2013

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Vijay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Nigam, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Rekha Gupta, Member

The revision petition No. 2330 of 2012 is filed against the impugned order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ( ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 1505 of 2009 in original complaint case no. 106 of 2011 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faizabad (‘the District Forum’).

The facts of the case as per the petitioner was as follows: The deceased Devendra Kumar Yadav was the son of petitioner/complainant no. 1, husband of petitioner no. 2 and father of petitioner no. 3. The facts of the case are as follows:

The son of the petitioner/complainant no.1 and husband of petitioner/ complainant no. 2 and father of petitioner/ complainant no.3, Late Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav was allegedly poisoned on the night of 22.02.2001 by Daya Shankar son of Rajaram, Rama Kant son of Daya Shanaker, Phool Chandra son of Babloo, Janaki Daughter of Phool Chandra and Vidhan son of Ram Bahal which was revealed in the morning of 23.02.2001 The petitioner went to a doctor at Baskhari who asked him to go to the District Hospital Faizabad and they rushed to Faizabad Hospital and Devendra Kumar Yadav was admitted at 09.00 A M on 23.02.2001 and he was attended by Dr Verma, respondent/Opposite party no. 1 before the District Forum. Mr Verma was negligent and did not carry out the required procedure for ousting the poison from the stomach when it was told that the case a poisoning and gave incorrect general medicines. Due to the negligent treatment and due to non-adopting the correct required treatment, the condition of Late Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav did not improve he the doctor then referred the patient to the Medical College, Lucknow.

The petitioner rushed Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav to Medical College, Lucknow where late Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav was admitted in ward no. III Bed no. 10 on the same day at about 12.00 Noon. Again there too Dr C G Aggarwal, respondent herein attended the patient and referred him to Dr A K Pandey for obtaining C T Scan and on the same day C T Scan was done in the clinic of Dr A K Pandey, 5 Subhash Marg, Near J G Medical College, Lucknow who gave report that there was impression of Intraventricular Haemorrhage. The late Devendra Kumar Yadav was required to be given correct medicines and other treatment for a poisoning case but it was not done.

On 26.02.2001 when the condition of the patient deteriorated then respondent referred the report for an opinion to Dr Ravi Das, Neurosurgeon, who clearly said that the case was of poisoning and review was needed.

Due to carelessness of Dr Verma at Faizabad Hospital and a gap of 2 days the late son of petitioner was unconscious but he never got the appropriate treatment to negate the result of poison. Again on 25.02.2001 the spinal cord was examined in order to obtain result as to whether Devendra Kumar Yadav had some other disease like Bacteria etc, or not and the result was Gram’s stained smear was negative and CSF smear was also negative for acit fast bacilli and thereafter again the doctor at Medical College did not adduce correct medicine and kept the patient negligently up to 28.02.2001and the patient died at 10.45 PM on 28.02.2001.

Now again to avoid to report to the nearest police station or Magistrate for suspected case of poisoning the doctor wrote the cause of death as cardiac failure.

The District Forum considered the case and recorded as follows:

'Services has sufficient on respondent/opposite party no. 1 and thereafter he appeared on 04.09.2011 through a paper no. 22 before the Court and said no relation to this matter of them and a wrong notice is issued to him. On this ground they told there is no necessity for appearing before the court on dates fixed. Services of notices has presumed on opposite party no. 2. Both opposite parties did not appear before the Court so for proceeding has initiated ex parte.

We have heard both ex and seen the paper books. The version of the petitioner/complainant, that the deceased Devendra Kumar Yadav was admitted on 23.02.2001 in the District Hospital, Faizabad where the treatment was done by the respondent/opposite party no. 1. Petitioner/Complainant no.1 gave his affidavit on this point. Against this affidavit, any opposite party, except petitioner/complainant no.1, affidavit complainants provided discharge certificate dated 24.02.2001 through paper no. 31/2 which shown deceased was admitted on 23.02.2001 in the District Hospital, Faizabad and his treatment was done by the respondent/ opposite party no. 1.

Petitioner/Complainants’ villagers’ one witness Pam Surat gave his affidavit in which it is stated that poison was given to the deceased in the night of 23.02.2001. Deceased was admitted in the District Hospital, Faizabad where the treatment was done by the respondent/opposite party no. 1 to the deceased. This witness also told that the petitioner/complainant no. 1 stated to the respondent/opposite party no. 1 that the poison was given to Devendra Kumar in the night. On the same point Ram Milan son of Ram Janam aged about 28 years given his affidavit.

All the witnesses have proved this fact. Medical negligence has committed by the opposite parties in the hospital of Faizabad and Lucknow Medical College. Negligence of doctors also proved this facts that the saying of the complainants the poison was given to the patients, his treatment did not made any of them and any of this facts has examined in the record. It is clear for this that the opposite parties have committed conceal his wrong.

By the petitioner/complainants has produced a photo copy of the toxicology book for giving treatment in the case of poison matter. By the petitioner/complainants has filed a case had all in above decision it is relying upon no reply was given by the respondent/ opposite parties of the affidavits than the fact of the affidavit could not be denied. In the aforesaid matter the affidavits of witnesses given in favour of the petitioner/complainants. In this affidavit it is clearly stated that the story is about giving poison to Devendra Kumar Yadav was told to both the respondents/opposite parties but by the both the respondents/ opposite parties did not give any treatment with regard to poison and due to negligence of the respondents/opposite parties the condition of the deceased has become serious and he has died. So the complainants have proved their case and the negligence of the doctors have been proved.

The deceased was aged about 30 years. He was given the poison but due to slackness in treatment by the doctors he died. There was no one to look after the petitioner/complainant except the deceased and if he would have alive then he must live till 60 years and cared his family. It has been stated in the complaint that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner/complainants have claimed Rs.5 lakh. In our opinion with regards to compensation, it is considered the uncertainty of life and one time earning and expenses on his family a total Rs.2.50 lakh compensation can be awarded. Except this 10% interest from the date of judgment till the actual date of payment can be awarded. In our opinion the petitioner/complainants are entitled to receive the such compensation'.

Hence, the District Forum ordered as under:

'The complaint is allowed for Rs.2.50 lakh against the respondents/ opposite parties ex –parte. The petitioner/complainants are entitled to receive interest 12% per annum from the respondent/opposite parties from the date of judgment till the date of recovery. The petitioner/ complainants will also receive Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses from the respondents/ opposite parties. The respondents/opposite parties are directed to make the payment of compensation within one month from the date of judgment'.

The petitioner filed appeal no. 1839 of 2006 before the State Commission for enhancement of the compensation.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent Dr G C Agarwal filed appeal no. 1505 of 2009 before the State Commission. In the affidavit in support of their contention before the State Commission, the respondent in his affidavit has stated on oath as under:

'That on 30.04.2009 the respondent/appellant was called to appear as a witness in a criminal complaint case no. 3562 of 2006 re: Ram Nihal versus Daya Shanker and Others pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, to give evidence on some medical legal queries during trial of the murder case of the deceased Devendra Kumar Yadav. Certified copy of the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in case no. 3562 of 2006, certifying the appearance of the respondent before him and recording of the statement.

The said case no. 3562 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner no. 1 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar on the grounds that the deceased son of the petitioner no. 1 was murdered due to some enmity in the village. Certified copy of the said complaint case no. 3562 of 2006 is being attached.

After recording of his statement, when the respondent was about to leave the court of CJM, the counsel for the petitioner/complainant informed the respondent, that in the same matter, one case has also been decided by the District Forum, Faizabad against the appellant and one Dr Ramendra Pratap Verma of Faizabad District, awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant on the basis of finding of medical negligence committed by the appellant and the said another doctor.

It is submitted that it was for the first time when the appellant came to know about any such complaint case being filed and decided against the appellant by the respondents before learned Forum, as prior to the same he was having no knowledge or information about the said case. The appellant never received any notice or summon etc., about the said case from the learned Forum, nor the respondents ever informed him about the same nor even the said judgment and award of the learned Forum was ever served upon the appellant by the respondents or given any information till date.

That the counsel for the respondents had also informed to the appellant that the said consumer complaint was filed in the year 2001 against the two doctors, viz., Ramendra Kumar Verma of District Faizabad and the appellant and the same was decided in the year 2006 itself. However, the respondent/complainant before the CJM did not divulge the number of case or other specific details of the consumer case despite the request of the appellant.

That it would have been appropriate and normal for a complainant with bonafide intention to have first met or at least serve a notice to the person from whom he felt aggrieved before approaching the court of law including the Consumer Forum. In any case, a bonafide complainant ought to have at least enquired from the person against whom he is about to file a complaint about his role in the matter in complaint. However, in the instant case, no such efforts and ever been made by the complainant either personally or by serving any notice to know the correct facts. Instead he chose to file a totally false, baseless and imaginary complaint before the learned Forum Faizabad, against doctors who even not treated the deceased person.

In the circumstances, after coming to Lucknow the appellant consulted his advocate and discussed the entire matter with him and sought his advice in the matter. The counsel then advised the appellant to make enquiry about any such complaint case or the award passed and also to find out the other doctor Verma, who was also said to have been party in the said complaint case.

As per the advice of the counsel, the appellant then started making inquiry about any such consumer complaint case against the appellant in Faizabad and also tried to find out the said other doctor Verma. After much efforts, it was only on 20.07.2009, through one friend of the appellant, the appellant was able to locate and contract Dr Ramendra Pratap Verma and consequently to inquire from him about the details of any such complaint case including the case number etc., before the learned Forum, Faizabad, as no details was available to the appellant. It was only then, that the appellant could know from the said doctor, the details of the said Consumer Case no. 106/2001. It was also informed that the said case was also decided by the learned Forum ex parte on 03.07.2006 against the appellant and the said doctor moreover, a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- was also awarded to the complainants/ respondents. It was also informed by Dr Verma that an appeal no. 1839 of 2006 has also been filed by the respondents before this Hon’ble Commission for enhancement of the compensation amount.

Immediately on coming to know about the said complaint case from Dr Verma the appellant consulted his advocate who suggested about his junior Mr Vijyant Nigam to let him go to Faziabad for inspection of the records and for obtaining certified copies of the required documents. Then the appellant as per the advice contacted Mr Vijyant Nigam on 23.07.2009 and requested him to go to Faizabad with the complainant who then went to Faizabad on 24.07.2009 and made enquiry from the office of the learned Forum, Faizabad. Mr Vijyant Nigam also applied for the inspection of the records of the said complaint case. It was only then when the appellant could be able to inspect the records of the learned Forum, Faizabad, relating to the said complaint case.

From the inspection of the records of the learned Forum, Faizabad, it was for the first time came to the knowledge of the appellant that a complaint no. 106 of 2001 was filed by the respondents in the year 2001 against the appellant and another Dr Ramendra Pratap Verma of District Hospital, Faizabad before the learned District Forum, Faizabad.

The complainants/ respondents alleged in their complaint that both the two doctors arrayed as opposite parties have committed medical negligence while giving treatment to the deceased patient Late Devendra Kumar Yadav due to which the patient died.

The District Forum Faizabad was pleased to admit the complaint and issued notices to both the opposite parties.

The District Forum, Faizabad after issuing notices to the opposite parties fixed the next date as 05.09.2001 for filing the written statements.

That on 05.09.2001, the District Forum Faizabad has passed the order that the opposite party no. 1 Dr Ramendra Pratap Verma has filed the written statement in which he submitted that he was not concerned with the alleged complaint and a wrong complaint was filed against him. About the appellant, the District forum found that the service of notice upon appellant/ opposite party no. 2 Dr C G Agrawal was not sufficient, hence, directed the complainant to take fresh steps within a week for issuing notice to the appellant/opposite party no. 2 and directed to issue notice to the appellant/ opposite party no. 2 to file written statement and for hearing. Certified copy of the order dated 05.09.2001 passed by the District Forum, Faizabad in complaint case no. 106 of 2001 is being attached herewith.

On 01.12.2001, the complaint case no. 106 of 2001 was against listed before the District Forum, Faizabad. On that date none appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 1, hence, the learned Forum directed for proceeding ex parte against him. Regarding the appellant / OP no. 2, it was observed by the learned Forum that neither the Registry sent to the appellant/ opposite party no. 2 had returned nor the A/ D was returned back and on that basis only, the District Forum presumed that the services upon the opposite party no. 2 was sufficient and directed to proceed ex parte against the OP no. 2/ appellant also.

Thereafter the District Forum, Faizabad proceeded ex parte against the appellant and finally decided the complaint on 03.07.2006 directing therein to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant.

That from the inspection of the records of the learned Forum, it was revealed that the opposite party no.1 Dr Ramendra Pratap Verma had also filed a recall application before the learned Forum, Faizabad on 30.06.2006 which is pending till date and the same was lastly listed on 24.07.2009. The said matter is now fixed for 26.10.2009.

It is submitted that the appellant has never received any notice of the said complaint case neither in official capacity nor in person, either from the learned Forum or from the respondents.

The appellant was also never made aware about the proceedings of the said complaint case against him before the learned Forum in any manner.

In the circumstances, the presumption drawn by the learned Forum that merely because the registry of AD had not returned, the notice could served upon the appellant/ OP No. 2 was factually incorrect and is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Commission. In any case, in view of the appellant/ OP 2 of any notice from the Forum is liable to be accepted by the learned Forum in absence of any evidence to the same is produced before the learned Forum. In the meantime the limitation for filing of the appeal before this Hon’ble Commission has also been expired long back.

Thereafter, the appellant applied for the certified copies of the orders passed by the learned Forum, Faizabad and obtained the same on 24.07.2009.

After obtaining the records relating to the said complaint case, the appellant then consulted about the matter with his advocate and it was opined by the advocate that an appeal should be filed against the said order before this Hon’ble Commission.

After getting the advice from his counsel regarding filing of an appeal, it took some time for arranging all the necessary documents and records as the matter was very old. It also took some time in completing the necessary formalities for filing of the appeal as the matter is a medical legal case and thereafter, immediately the appeal is prepared and is being filed herewith without any delay on part of the appellant'.

The State Commission noted that, 'it is a case of alleged medical negligence by the doctors who had attended the deceased Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav before he expired on 28.02.2001. Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav was the son of Shri Ram Nihal, the complainant no. 1, husband of complainant no. 2 Smt Vidyawati and father of the complainant no. 3 Kumari Shivangi, the minior. He was admitted in the district Hospital, Faizabad on 23.02.2001 at 09.00 A M but since his condition did not improve he was referred to the King George Medical College, presently known as Chatrapati Shauja Maharaj Medical University. In the medical college, he was attended to by Dr C G Agarwal. He was then examined by Dr A K Pandey and Neurosurgeon Dr Ravi Das. Unfortunately, he died on 28.02.2001 at 10.45 p.m. His relative Shri Mahendra Kumar Yadav had taken his body without any complaint against the hospital authorities, as is evident from his application dated 28.02.2001. About 5 month after, the complaint before the District Consumer Forum was filed by the three complainants, as stated above and in the complaint, it was for the first time revealed that Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav was the victim of poisoning. The names of the person who had allegedly administered the poison to him were disclosed as Daya Shankar, Rama Kant, Phool Chandra, Janki and Vidhan. The impugned judgment appears to indicate that the two doctors namely Dr Ramendra Pratap Verma and Dr C G Agarwal did not appear before the District Forum to contest the complaint as a consequence, ex parte proceedings were drawn and ex parte judgment delivered.

By means of the judgment, the District Forum recorded a finding that the doctors who were supposed to have cleaned the stomach of the deceased so as to relieve the body of the patient of the adverse effects of the poisoning and they were, thus, guilty of medical negligence. On the basis of this finding, the complaint was allowed and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- awarded as compensation. Interest @ 12% per annum had also been levied.

Mrs P I Nigam learned counsel for the appellant Dr C G Agarwal has submitted that the theory of poisoning was based on an after though idea as neither any FIR against the accused person namely Daya Shankar and others was lodged nor any intimation to doctors who had attended the patient or any other authority of the district or police was given. It is supplemented further by the learned counsel that not only the theory of poisoning was imaginary one but the findings of the District Forum too are nothing but presumptary and based on sumrises and conjectures. The contention seems to carry weight. There is nothing on record to indicate that prompt FIR was lodged for the incident of poisoning. Not only that the complainants particular the complainant no. 1 who is father of the deceased was not knowing the procedure of taking the criminal action but it appears that neither there was a story of poisoning in the beginning nor there was any indication of any such incident. It is surprising to note that a complaint under section 302 IPC on the basis of the story of poisoning was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad 5 years after the alleged incident of poisoning. No doubt the story had already figured in the complaint filed before the District Forum but the delay in filing the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate further explodes the imaginary theory of poisoning. The complainants had not offered any explanation as to why the fact about the poisoning was not conveyed to any authority such as police or the doctors who had been attend the patient. The affidavit of Shri Ram Surat, a villager, is not worthy of credit for the simple reasons of his being silent for four years altogether. He filed his affidavit during the pendency of the complaint. Shri Ram Surat too did not submit any explanation as to why he did not take a prompt action by filing an FIR or by approaching any other district authorities. Also he has not come forward with any explanation as to why he did not inform the father of the deceased soon after he came to learn about the incident of poisoning. The long silence on his part falsifies his statement that Daya Shankar and others had poisoned the deceased. Although it will be within the jurisdiction of a competent criminal court of law to make a positive finding on the issuing in question and we are sure that by our observations such court will not be unnecessarily prejudiced, yet we in order to arrive at a just finding on the issue before us can observe that the theory of poisoning was nothing but a tissue of lies.

Had it been brought to the doctors knowledge that Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav was the victim of poisoning, there was no reason for either of them not to have gone into the process of cleaning his stomach as per the prescribed procedure. Moreover, the cleaning of a poisoned stomach is immediately required soon after the incident. The appellant Dr C G Agarwal who was incharge of the ward where Devendra Yadav was admitted for his treatment on 23.02.2001 referred the patient Dr A K Pandey for obtaining the CT Scan report and Dr Pandey, submitted his report to the effect that there was an impression of Intra Ventricular Haemorrhage. Then the patient was referred to Dr Ravi Das, the Neuro Surgeon. It is admitted to the complainants that C T Scan revealed impression of Intra Ventricular Haemorrhage but there is no evidence on record to suggest that Dr Ravi Das submitted a report about the patient being poisoned.

It is a cardinal Rule of Law that a complainant is required to establish his case as alleged by him in his complaint. In the case in hand not an iota of evidence was produced either before the District Forum or before this Appellant Court to prove that the two doctors namely Dr Ramendra Pratap Verma and Dr C G Agarwal had come to learn about the incident of poisoning before they had examined the patient. In the absence of any such evident, it would be extremely difficult to suggest that the two doctors were guilty of the medical negligence or deficiency in service on their part by not giving due attention to the said aspect of the matter. The impression of Intraventricular Haemorrhage has no relevance vis-a-vis the poisoning the patient rather indicated that he suffered haemorrhage. The complainants have not adduced any medical literature in support of their contention and connect the impression of Intraventricular Haemorrhage with poisoning. The CT Scan report evidently reported the seriousness of the head injury. Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav had suffered and the same was perhaps the main cause which had led to his death. The impression of Intraventricular Haemorrhage certainly has no relevance with the incident of alleged poisoning. The fact that the complainant came to learn about the poisoning on 12.04.2001 as recited in paragraph 8 of their complaint no. 3562 of 2006 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar clearly proves that the theory of poisoning having been conveyed to the two doctors at the relevant time of the patient being attended by them, was totally false, baseless after thought and based on surmises and conjectures.

Funny the doctors were rounded up in the negligence case but no action was taken against the accused for five years'.

Hence, the State Commission gave the following order:

'Mr Vijay Yadav learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant has not pointed out any document with reference to which or on the basis of which communication about the poisoning would have been made to the two doctors. We are therefore, of the view that neither Dr C G Agarwal nor the other doctor who had attended the patient, Faizabad was guilty of any kind of medical negligence.

In the result, the appeal of Dr C G Agarwal succeeds and is hereby allowed.

The impugned judgment is set aside and the complaint dismissed. As a consequence, other appeal no. 1839 of 2006 becomes redundant and it is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly'.

Hence, this revision petition.

The grounds for the revision petition are as follows :

'Because the incident of poisoning has totally ignored by the State Commission by the persons (Daya Shanker, Rama Kant, Phool Chand, Janki and the Vidhan Chandra) who had administered the poison to late Devendra Kumar Yadav. They have been prosecuted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar vide its order dated 15.07.2009 under section 302/34 & 120 (b) IPC in complaint case no. 3562 of 2006.

The State Commission has misread the C T Scan report dated 24.02.2011 by which it is crystal clear in case of poisoning Intraventricular Haemorrhage is the result.

The State Commission acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction in not taking any medical literature or any expert opinion on the finding (Intraventricular Haemorrhage) of CT Scan examination.

The State Commission has acted illegally in expressing the power of an expert himself when it is a well settled law that a court himself cannot act as an expert.

The State Commission has acted illegally and irregularly in ignoring the procedure of criminal action, against the persons who had given poison to the deceased.

The State Commission has failed to exercise its jurisdiction because a highly time barred appeal has been filed by Dr C G Agrawal (i.e., near about 3 years) before the State Commission but without giving any single words of this point in impugned judgment while the same was opposed by the reply of the revisionists no. 1.

The order passed by the State Commission is illegal, improper and perverse the evidence and also ignored the documentary evidence available on record'.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

Counsel for the petitioner insisted that it was a case of poisoning and that the doctors had been so informed, and hence, the respondents was guilty of medical negligence. He has also drawn our attention to the report of the Plain Cranial C T Study and insisted that it supported the fact that it was due to poisoning.

We have seen the report which is reproduced below:

'Serial 5.0 mm & 10.mm cuts were taken through posterior fossa and supralentorial compartments.

POSTERIOR FOSSA

Fourth ventricle is normal in size and located

Both the cerebellar hemos here are within normal limit.

SUPRAILNIORIAL

Bilateral horizontal CSF haematoent level is seen in both ingonus

Both the lateral ventricles as such are mildly dilated 3rd ventricle is within normal limits

No mid line shift is observed


Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

>Basal cisterns and cortical such are obliterated Bony calvaria is within normal limits Impression: IntraventricularHaemorrhage'. Nowhere, in the report has it been reported that it was due to poison. The other documents placed on record also do not mention that doctors were informed that it was case of poisoning rather the case was diagnosed as ‘Encealogy’. It is difficult to come to any conclusions after studying the typed copies of the annexures produced as they have been very badly translated and the diagnosis is given in terms which are not found in the medical dictionary. The original documents cannot be read. Counsel for the petitioner again in the State Commission could not point out any documents with reference to which or on the basis of which communication about the poisoning would have purportedly been made to the doctors. He could not also produce any document showing that death was due to poisoning. There is no copy of the FIR, death certificate or post mortem report on record. The case was lodged in the court of CJM Faizabad five years later after the said incident. The treatment record has also not been supplied and record given are also not readable. It is an ubdisputed fact that Shri Devendra Kumar Yadav was admitted in the District hospital , Faizabad on 23.02.2001 at 09.00 AM . Since his condition was serious he was referred to King George Medical College,Lucknow presently known as Chatrapati Sahauja Maharaj Medical University, where he was attended to by the petitioner. He was then examined by Dr A K Pandey and Neurosurgeon Dr Ravi Das. He died on 28.02.2001 at 10.45 p m. About five months later the petitioner filed a case before the District Forum. The respondent did not get any notice and hence, could not appear before the District Forum to contest the case and the decision was taken ex parte. The respondent came to know about the case for the first time on 30.04.2009 when he was called as a witness in a criminal complaint case no. 3562 of 2006 regarding – Ram Nihal vs Daya Shanker and Ors., pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, to give evidence on some medical legal queries during the trial of the murder case of the deceased Devendra Kumar Yadav. The counsel for the petitioner could not produce any documents/ records/ or evidence to support his case that the respondents had been negligent, while treating the deceased who died as a result of poisoning either before the State Commission or before us. In view of the foregoing reasons we find that there is no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of ‘Consumer Welfare Fund’ as per Rule 10 A of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. List on 3rd May 2013 for compliance.
O R