DR. AHSAMUDDIN & ANR. V. HEERA LAL

Versus

1. HEERA LAL

Case No: REVISION PETITION NO. 1132 OF 2022

Date of Judgement: 19 Jan 2023

Judges:

For the Petitioners : Ms. Ankita, Advocate

Facts:

District Forum:

Proceeded ex-parte against Petitioners. Allowed complaint directing payment of Rs 4 lakhs compensation with interest and costs.

State Commission:

Dismissed appeal and confirmed District Forum order. Held Petitioner had no right to provide allopathic treatment, hence indulged in unfair trade practice.

Revision Petition:

Revisional jurisdiction to be used sparingly for limited purposes. No reason to interfere with concurrent findings of fora below. Petition dismissed.

Download Court Copy: https://dreamlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/128.pdf

Full Text of Judgment:

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the impugned Order dated 02.08.2022, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 81/2020, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties was dismissed and the Order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-III (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) was confirmed.
2. The facts in brief are that on 15.02.2005, the Complainant’s / Respondent’s wife Ms. Yashoda (patient) suddenly became ill and she was taken to the Petitioner No. 1 / OP-1 Dr. Ahsamuddin at ZBM Hospital. He treated the patient with some injections, pills and also with glucose drip. The patient was kept overnight in the hospital and discharged on 16.02.2005 despite her ill health and asked to show to another doctor. As the patient’s health further deteriorated, her husband took her to S.M.S. Hospital at emergency, where the doctors declared her dead at 1.20 pm. The Complainant’s in-laws lodged an FIR against the OP-1. It was further alleged that the OP-1 was BUMS degree holder and treated negligently with allopathic medicines, which caused the death of the patient. Being aggrieved, patient’s husband filed the Complaint before the District Forum.
3. The OPs remained absent before the District Forum despite opportunities, therefore, the District Forum proceeded ex-parte against the OPs.
4. The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 4 lakh with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from 19.07.2007 plus Rs. 25,000/- as cost within one month. In case of non-compliance, the Complainant was entitled to receive 9% interest p.a. till its realisation.
5. Being aggrieved, the OPs filed a First Appeal before the State Commission, Rajasthan. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following observation:
“7. Section 50 of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act-1953 follow The type is:

(ii) for giving expert evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Exidence Act 1872, at any inquest or in any Court of law in respect of any such cases and matters relating to the Indian system of medicine, surgery or midwifery.
6. Being aggrieved, both the OPs have filed instant Revision Petition.
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the material on record.
9. The Revision Petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed.