The Hindu : Doctor told to pay for `unfair practice'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Dec 12, 2003

Other States

Other States - New Delhi

Doctor told to pay for `unfair practice'

By Mandira Nayar

NEW DELHI DEC. 11. It was an "unfair trade practice'' for which a young boy in Jharkhand paid with his life. And while his father learnt about the Consumer Protection Act the hard way when a compounder administered the wrong injection to his son, he never thought he would have to endure a long battle in court for justice.

Despite a Jharkhand district forum directing the doctor, Baleshwar Prasad, and the compounder to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and ordering the closure of their dispensary, it took the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to tilt the scales of justice towards the father.

After going through the evidence, a bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the State Commission in Jharkhand as well as the district forum had "noticed that Dr. Baleshwar Prasad didn't have any medical qualification either in allopathy or in homeopathy system of medicine. His case was that he was competent to treat the ailing persons since he was having a qualification of RMP (Rural Medical Practitioner) in allopathy system of medicine. He is an intermediate in Arts. Though he produced a copy of the certificate issued by the Counsel of RMP, Bihar, District Forum has doubted the genuineness and correctness of the certificates.''

Narrating the sequence of events, the bench stated that the boy came back from school at 3.00 p.m. and suddenly complained of severe headache along with high fever. He was taken to Dr. Baleshwar Prasad's dispensary. The compounder, who is the doctor's brother, injected the medicine. When there was no improvement in the condition of the boy the second petitioner administered another injection. Again there was no improvement and he advised the father to take his son elsewhere for treatment. The boy was rushed to the Bhuli Central Hospital but was declared dead on arrival.

Stating that it was a clear case of negligence and has been rightly held to be so, the bench upheld the decision of the district forum as well as the State Commission. Dismissing the argument that the district forum has "no jurisdiction to direct the closure of the dispensary being run by the doctor, the bench held that "`unfair trade practice'' has been defined in Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is an unfair practice, if a person represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade or makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services." Therefore, it held that the district forum could direct the closure of the dispensary under Clause (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.

The bench further observed that both the forums have found that the doctor did not possess even valid RMP license, which amounts to unfair trade practice. "The compounder certainly could not give injection without any technique or prescription by qualified doctor. He works as a compounder under the doctor. There is no doubt that they are indulging in an unfair trade practice, in as much as, they did not possess any medical qualification and prescribing medicines which they could not do,'' it stated.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Other States

News Update

Stories in this Section

Khurana remarks on Sonia in bad taste: Ahmed Patel

Cop identifies vehicle in Jessica case

Metro displaced yet to see light at the end of the tunnel

Doctor told to pay for `unfair practice'

Survey sees a `son preference' society

`Women trafficking linked to poverty'