NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 887 OF 2012
WITH
I.A./1/2012(For stay)
(Against the order dated 24-11-2011 in Appeal No. A/11/454
of the State Commission, Maharashtra)
Dr. R.R. Singh AVV (BOM)
Regn. No. 12089 Varadan Clinic
Near Pal School, Hanuman Nagar
Akruli Road, Kandivali,
East Mumbai – 4001010
Mumbai, Maharashtra ........ Petitioner (s)
Vs.
Pratibha P. Gamre
Jeemala Chawl Hanuman Nagar
Opp. Medina Bakery
Akruli Road, Kandivali East
Mumbai – 4001010
Maharashtra …….Respondent (s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, Advocate
For the Caveator : N E M O
Dated : 14th May, 2012
ORDER
PER JUSTICE MR. J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
The main question which falls for consideration is what is the effect of a medical practitioner, who is an Ayurveda Practitioner but treats the patient in allopathic stream?
2. The facts of the case are these. On 20th August, 2004, late Shri Panddurang Gamare accompanied by his wife Smt. Pratibha P. Gamre, approached Dr. R.R. Singh for the pain below waist in both legs. According to complainant Smt. Pratibha, the respondent informed her that the illness of her husband was of serious nature and late Shri Panddurang Gamaremay suffer an attack of paralysis. A sum of Rs.2,700/- was paid to carry out some investigation and for medicine. The respondent admitted the patient in his clinic. During the night late Shri Panddurang Gamare was left under the care of compounder. His condition deteriorated at about 3 A.M. The compounder was asked to inform the doctor and call him there immediately. The compounder did not call the revisionist and himself gave the saline and medicine prescribed by the revisionist. Late Shri Panddurang Gamare expired immediately. A police complaint was lodged and the appellant was convicted under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act, 1961. The Act debars the doctors dealing in Ayurveda from indulging in allopathic stream prescribing allopathetic drugs. The petitioner was given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and a compensation in the sum of Rs.25,000/- was also awarded. That order has attained finality.
3. The complaint filed by Smt. Panddurang Gamare was dismissed by the District Forum. However, the State Commission reversed the order of the lower court and directed the petitioner to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs to the complainant. It was also observed that late Shri Panddurang Gamare was serving as a Deputy Supdt. in the local body. His gross salary was stated to be Rs.9,750/- per month. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed.
4. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that the petitioner died a natural death and the post mortem report itself reads that the husband of the respondent died due to heart attack. It was also argued that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioner for an offence under Section 304 part II, IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it clearly means that the petitioner was not negligent. It is contended that the main basis of filing this complaint is the medical negligence of the petitioner.
5. Instead of touching the heart of the problem, the learned counsel just skirted it. First of all, it was found that the condition of late Shri Panddurang Gamare was alarming, the petitioner should not have admitted him in his clinic. He should have advised the patient to move to some renowned hospital. It is difficult to fathom as to how and why drugs likeBetnesol, Decadron & Neurobion were prescribed without consulting any allopathic doctor. It is difficult to understand as to how did the petitioner switch over to alleopathy without any knowledge of the same. His this very action smacks of negligence which may not be sufficient for conviction u/s 304 Part II. A Doctor is not supposed to play with the lives of people for his personal gain.
6. Again, the affidavit filed by Dr. A.L. Rouben is of utmost importance. Succinctly stated, he submits that looking to the condition of late Panddurang Gamare, he ought not to have been admitted in the clinic of the petitioner/Revisionist and he should have been admitted in some hospital/nursing home having an ICU facility. He further opined that the above said drugs should not have been given to the patient. Consequently, the State Commission rightly held that the petitioner is guilty of deficiency in service and the amount granted by it in the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs appears to be just and reasonable.
7. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
..…………………..………J
(J.M. MALIK)
PRESIDING MEMBER
..……………….……………
(SURESH CHANDRA)
MEMBER
aj/
