Page 261 - DMGT306_MERCANTILE_LAWS_II

Mercantile Laws – II

Notes Protection Council. It shall consist of the Collector of the district (by whatever name called),
who shall be its Chairman and such number of other official and non-official members
representing such interests as may be prescribed by the State Government. The District Council
shall meet as and when necessary but not less than two meetings shall be held every year. The
District Council shall meet at such time and place within the district as the Chairman may think
fit and shall observe such procedure in regard to the transaction of its business as may be
prescribed by the State Government.

Self Assessment

State whether the following statements are true or false:
10. Lawyers are necessary to register a complaint under CPA, 1986
11. A consumer has a right to seek redressal under CPA, 1986



Caselet Guilty of Negligence

A doctor qualified to practice homoeopathic system of medicines treating a patient
with allopathic medicines and patient dies is a case of guilty of negligence.

In Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel [1996(4) SCALE 364] the respondent was a qualified medical
practitioner in homoeopathic system of medicine. The appellant was the widow of a
person who, it was alleged, had died because of the negligence of the respondent in
administering allopathic medicines in which he was not qualified to practice. It was alleged
that the deceased was treated to begin with, for viral fever on allopathic medicines and
since his condition had not improved antibiotics were used without conducting proper
tests. When his condition further deteriorated he was removed to a nursing home and
after four days he was removed to a hospital in an unconscious state. Within a few hours
thereafter he died.

Her complaint to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for damages
for the negligence and carelessness of respondent in treating her husband was dismissed.
Allowing the appeal the Supreme Court held that the respondent who had practised in
allopathy without being qualified in that system was guilty of negligence per se. A person
is liable at law for the consequences of his negligence.
Jurisdiction of the Commission: The Supreme Court observed that it is beyond doubt now
that disputes regarding applicability of the Act to persons engaged in medical profession
either as private practitioners or as Government doctors working in hospitals or
Government dispensaries come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is also settled that a patient who is a consumer has to be awarded compensation for loss
or injury suffered by him due to negligence of the doctor by applying the same tests as are
applied in an action for damages for negligence.
In Gopi Ram Goyal and others v. National Heart Institute and others, 2001 CTJ 405 (CP) (NCDRC),
the National Commission held that where the record and evidence shows that the conduct
of the opposite parties i.e. doctors was more than reasonable and the level of care was as
could be expected from professional in exercising reasonable degree of skill and knowledge.
The complainant however failed to prove any case of negligence on the part of doctors,
therefore the doctor cannot be held liable for death of patient.
Source: http://www.labourguide.co./consumer-protection-act

256 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY