AICL Cases 2017

Every consumer complaint must support expert reports to substantiate the allegations, which is mandatory u/s 13 (4)(IV) of CPA, 1986

Being aggrieved by the order of DCF, Buxar dated 30.09.2015; an appeal was filed on behalf on AICL member doctor/appellant; as the AICL member was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs to the respondent/complainant along with an interest @ 8%.
Facts: The uterus of the mother of complainant was operated by the appellants on 27.12.2009; but after the operation, the appellant doctor left for Patna, meanwhile, the condition of the patient deteriorated and blood was transfused but the patient had blood vomiting, the appellant doctor arrived by the time but in course of time the patient died. Compensation of Rs. 13 lakhs was demanded via consumer complaint for negligence, besides an FIR was also filed. Despite the case fought by the AICL counsel under the guidance of best medico-legal experts and strong arguments, the learned DCF allowed the complaint.
Contention of appellant:
The counsel of AICL submitted that the complaint have not filed the complaint u/s 12 (C); no expert report has been obtained to substantiate the allegations which is mandatory u/s 13 (4)(IV) of CPA, 1986. There is no evidence that patient was wrongly and negligently treated and also wrong blood group was transfused by the appellant. The criminal complaint was also dismissed.
The learned court stated that as per the medical board constituted there was no negligence on part of appellant and only on this basis the CJM dismissed the criminal case against the appellant. There is no finding that that wrong blood was transfused. DCF failed to consider the most important point of experts report. Further there is no evidence that the complainant paid fees to the doctor hence she is not consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of CPA, 1986. Though the court has sympathy that complainant lost her mother but no negligence has been attributed. The appeal was allowed and DCF judgment was set aside.