What
is Law
     Right
of Doctors
     Responsibilities    
Negligence    
Consents     Records    
Cases

       

Legislations    
Medical
Ethics
      FAQ’s

   

    

General

     

SUPREME
COURT CASES

  
 

RIGHT TO PRACTICE TO PRACTICE ALLOPATHY

  • Dr.
    Mukhtiar Chand & Ors. v. The State
    of Punjab & Ors.: AIR 1999, SC 468


     

    In 1999 the Supreme Court in Dr.
    Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab has
    held that Ayurvedic vaids and Unani
    hakims cannot practice allopathic
    medicine unless such right is
    conferred by State Law. The position
    with regard to medical practitioners
    of Indian medicine holding degrees in
    integrated courses is that:- if any
    State Act recognises their
    qualification as sufficient for
    registration in the State Medical
    register, the prohibition from them
    practicing allopathic medicine
    contained in Section 15 (2) (b) of the
    Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 will
    not apply. 

       

    So far there is no provision in the
    State Acts viz. Bombay Medical
    Practitioners Act, 1938 or the
    Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act
    under which the right to practice any
    system of medicine is conferred on
    practitioners of Indian medicine
    registered under those Acts.
    Definition of Indian Medicine under
    the Indian Medicine Central Council
    Act, 1970 means system of Indian
    Medicine commonly known as Ashtang
    Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb whether
    supplemented or not by such modern
    advances as the Central Council may
    declare by notification from time to
    time.

      

    The definition, however, enables such
    practitioners of Indian Medicine to
    make use of modern advances in various
    sciences such as Radiology, ECG, Blood
    picture report etc. for the purpose of
    practicing their own system. The flip
    side of this judgment is that
    practitioners of other systems of
    medicine cannot practice allopathic
    system of medicine unless a State Law
    permits it. By analogy, allopathic
    practitioners also cannot prescribe
    drugs belonging to another system of
    medicine unless permitted by a State
    Law. As abundant precaution allopathic
    practitioners should only prescribe
    drugs from their own system of
    medicine -the judgment of Poonam Verma
    vs. Dr. Ashwin Patel.

        

HIGH
COURT CASES


    

PROFESSIONAL HAZARD RESULTING IN HARM
TO DOCTOR

  • Suraj
    Mal Chhajer v. State and others the
    Rajasthan High Court (AIR 1999 Raj.
    82)


       

    In Suraj Mal Chhajer v. State and
    others the Rajasthan High Court (AIR
    1999 Raj. 82) awarded interim
    compensation to the father of a
    deceased resident doctor who died due
    to contracting Hepatitis-B while in
    service. An Inquiry Committee had
    given a report in which it had stated
    that, “She might not have
    contracted the disease, had she been
    vaccinated earlier against Hepatitis-B
    and adopted other preventive measures,
    such as using disposable syringes,
    needles, gloves, aprons, etc. There
    may be a lapse in the availability of
    these above mentioned preventive
    measures.”

         

  • Naved
    Ahmed V. Dr. Rakesh Kacker

    I(2000)CPJ 201 S C DRC, UP

      

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section
    2(1)(C)-Complaint-Medical Negligence-Crimal
    case pending Defense if disclosed
    would prejudice defense in criminal
    case-Proceedings before Commission
    cannot  continue Complaint-Case
    stayed till disposal of criminal case.

     

    Held: If the Opposite party is
    directed to file a written statement
    then naturally his defense which
    he has to take before the Criminal
    Court which is pending ,prejudice will
    be caused to him. No doubt the
    finding arrived at by the Criminal
    Court are not binding on the Civil
    Court, but even thenone has to
    judge the matter in the light of the
    right available to an accused not to disclose
    him defense in a Criminal Court before
    the completion of the prosecution
    evidence. The defense by the
    accused is disclosed at the time of
    his statement under Section 311 of the Criminal
    Procedure Code and thereafter in the
    evidence which he may lead in defense
    of his case. These two statements
    of the accused are recorded after
    completion of the prosecution
    evidence. Before that the accused
    cannot be compelled to disclose his
    defense even though he may put suggestions
    to the witness of the prosecution
    during the course of cross-examination
    which may indicate the defense which
    the accused is going to take. It is
    unto the accused to disclose his defense
    during the course of cross-examination
    of the prosecution witnesses or not
    but he cannot be compelled to do
    so.

         

    therefore, it will be expedient in the
    in the interest of justice to stay the
    proceedings of this case till the
    criminal case us decided.

           

  • K.E. RAJESH
    v. PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL


    III
    (2000) CPJ 354

       

    Consumer
    Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Kerala Co-operative
    Societies Act
    – Sections 69(1) and 70 – Medical Negligence – Complainant
    treated in Co-operative Hospital – Complainant treated in
    Co-operative Hospital – Complaint filed alleging medical
    negligence – District Forum 
    dismissed complaint is barred under Section 69(1) of
    Kerala Co-operative Societies Act – Appeal – Complainant not a
    member of Society – Case of medical negligence does not acquire
    character of “business” of Society – Complaint is
    maintainable.

     

    Held:
    Here the complainant is not a member of the Society. Unless it
    is shown, the case of negligence in treatment by the doctors of
    a cooperative hospital could acquire the character of
    “business” mentioned in Section 69(1), a dispute
    touching the said business cannot fall within the scope of
    Section 69(1) so as to require the same to be referred to the
    Registrar for adjudication. Undoubtedly medical negligence
    involves adjudication of the question whether the doctor
    attended the patient with the care and diligence expected of
    him. It will involve the question whether hospital was equipped
    for attending the ailment of the patient. This involves both
    legal and factual questions and, therefore, normally such
    questions cannot be treated to have been intended to be dealt
    with by Registrar of Cooperative Society.

     

    Held
    further: Having noted that a wide interpretation cannot be given
    to the word “dispute” in Section 69(1) of the Kerala
    Cooperative Societies Act, in the context of the aforesaid
    judicial pronouncements, it has to be helm that the dispute of
    the nature in question would not fall within the scope of
    Section 69(1). Now it becomes necessary to advert to Section
    70(1) (b) of the Act which gives power to the Registrar to
    transfer matter for disposal to any person who has been invested
    by the Government with power in that behalf. 
    When the Registrar cannot deal with a matter, in such
    matters has to be transferred it to competent person who is
    invested with powers in that behalf. Admittedly there is no such
    person appointed or is invested with such powers to adjudicate
    matters relating to medical negligence. Even assuming such
    course is open to the Registrar; the “dispute” should
    be one which could take in a matter like medical negligence. As
    already seen the word “dispute” in the context has to
    be held to have been used only to get a restricted meaning to
    take in only such matter can resolve. And “business”
    could means only actual trading or other similar business
    activity when the Society is authorized to enter into.
    Therefore, one cannot say that the matter involving question of
    medical negligence death with by the Registrar of Co-operative
    Societies so that Section 69(1) of the Act; therefore, the said
    section cannot be made applicable.

     

    Result:
    Appeal allowed.

     

    ORDER

     

    Mr.
    Justice L. Manoharan, President – Complainant in O.P. 1153/98 on
    the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur is
    the appellant. Complainant alleged before the 
    District Forum that he was admitted in the first opposite
    party-hospital for treatment, he underwent surgery in July, 1997
    and the surgery was performed by the second opposite party.
    After the surgery he had severe pain. When he complained to the
    second opposite party, he was disappear by exercise. Inspite of
    exercise for a long period, the defect did not disappear. So he
    had to undergo another surgery. He is a manual worker; his
    endeavour to work and earn for his living is affected by the
    negligent treatment  imparted
    by the opposite parties. Therefore, he wanted a direction to the
    opposite parties to pay compensation. Version was filed. The
    District Forum proceeded to hear the complainant’s Counsel and
    the respondent. On hearing them the District Forum dismissed the
    complain holding that under Section 69 of Kerala Cooperative
    Societies Act (for short, the Act) the complaint is not
    maintainable before the Forum. The said dismissal is challenged
    in this appeal.

     

    2. 
    Learned Counsel for the appellant urged, the view taken
    by the District Forum that the complaint is not maintainable
    fore it in view of Section 69 (1) of Kerala Co-operative
    Societies Act is not correct with due regard to the nature of
    the dispute involved. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the
    complainant that dispute touching the business of the Society
    should be one connected with actual business or such other
    matter and it cannot include a case of medical negligence.
    Reliance was also made by the learned Counsel on the decision of
    Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 
    SC 1320, Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd.v.M/s.
    Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors. Reliance was also made by the
    learned Counsel on the decision of the Supreme 
    Court in 1995 (3) CPR 412= III(1995) CPJ 1 (SC), Indian
    Medical Association v. V.P. Santha & Anr., wherein the
    Supreme Court went into the question of jurisdiction of the
    Commission and forum to deal with the case of medical negligence
    and held that these FOR A constituted under the Consumer
    Protection Act have got legal background and, therefore, they
    are competent to adjudicate upon the said issues. This decision
    is relied on in support of his argument as to competency of
    Forum to adjudicate the matter.

     

    On
    the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent sought to
    support the view of the District Forum maintaining that even
    assuming that the Registrar of Co-operative Society himself may
    not be able to adjudicate a case of medical negligence, since he
    could transfer such type of dispute to any person who has been
    invested with power by the Government to deal with the same,
    there could be no difficulty for the body constituted under
    Section 70(1) of the Act to deal with the matter. Reference was
    made by the learned Counsel on the decision of this Commission
    in V.Viswanatha Pillai & Anr.v.the Branch Manager, Kottayam
    D.C.B. Ltd. & Anr., 1996(1) CPR 453.

     

    3. 
    The whole argument of the appellant is based on the
    character and nature of the business. Here the complainant is
    not a member of the Society. Unless it is shown, the case of
    negligence in treatment by the doctors of a co-operative
    hospital could acquire the character of “business”
    mentioned in Section 69(1), a dispute touching the said business
    cannot fall within the scope of Section 69(1) so as to require
    the same to be referred to the Registrar for adjudication.
    Undoubtedly medical negligence involves adjudication of the
    question whether the doctor attended the patient with the care
    and deligence expected of him. It will involve the question
    whether hospital was equipped for attending the ailment of the
    patient. The involves both legal and factual questions and,
    therefore, normally such questions cannot be treated to have
    been intended to be dealt with by Registrar of Cooperative
    Society. The Supreme Court in Deccan Jagraj Jain & Ors.
    (supra), referred to early, interpreted the word ‘business’ in
    Sub-section (1) of Section 91 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
    Act (32 of 1961) and observed that the said word ‘business’ is
    used in narrower sense and it means the actual trading or other
    similar business activity of the Society which the Society is
    authorized to enter into under the Act, Rules and Bye-laws. In
    Para 23 of the said decision the Supreme Court states one other
    limitation, and interprets the word “dispute” and
    holds, the word “dispute” covers only those disputes
    which are capable of being resolved by the Registrar or his
    nominee. The competency of the Forum to 
    adjudicate cases of medical negligence has been gone into
    by the Supreme Court in the decision in Indian Medical
    Association v. V.P. Santha & Ors. (supra), wherein the
    Supreme Court held that the FOR A are competent and equipped to
    go into the question of medical negligence particularly in the
    context of the fact the President of the Forum since is
    well-versed in law and has judicial or legal experience, they
    are in a position to adjudicate both the legal and factual
    question that could arise in such matters.

      

    4.  
    Having noted that a wide interpretation cannot be given
    to the word “dispute” in Section 69(1) of the Kerala
    Co-operative Societies Act, in the context of the aforesaid
    judicial pronouncements, it has to be held, that the dispute of
    the nature in question would not fall within the scope of
    Section69(1). Now it becomes necessary to advert to Section
    70(1)(b) of the Act which gives power to the Registrar to
    transfer matter for disposal to any person who has been invested
    by the Government with power in that behalf. When the Registrar
    cannot deal with a matter, in such matters has to be transferred
    it to competent person who is invested with powers in that
    behalf. Admittedly there is no such person appointed or is
    invested with such powers to adjudicate matters relating to
    medical negligence. As already seen the word “dispute” 
    in the context has to be held to have been used only to
    get a restricted meaning to take in only such matter can
    resolve. And “business” could means only actual
    trading or other similar business activity when the Society is
    authorized to enter into. Therefore, one cannot say that the
    matter involving question of medical negligence dealt with by
    the Registrar of Co-operative Societies so that Section 69(1) of
    the Act; therefore, the said section cannot be made applicable.

     

    5. 
    The decision in 1996(1) CPR 453 (supra) is clearly
    distinguishable. (V.Viswanatha Pillai & Anr.v. The Branch
    Manager, Kottayam D.C.B. Ltd. & Anr.). The same concerns a
    loan transaction we have already noted that the Supreme Court in
    Deccan Mercantile Co-operative Bank v. Dalichand (supra), held
    that the “business” is used in the Co-operative
    Societies Act in a narrower sense and it means the actual
    trading or other similar business activity of the Society.
    Therefore, the said decision cannot be made applicable to a case
    involving medical negligence. When that is the position the
    order passed by the District Forum cannot be supported and the
    same is liable to be set aside and the matters has to be
    remitted to the District Forum for disposal in accordance with
    law.

     

    6. 
    In the result the appeal is allowed the impugned order is
    set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Forum,
    which shall restore the complaint to file, give opportunity to
    opposite party to file their version and will dispose of in
    accordance with law. There will be no orders as to costs in this
    appeal. Parties shall appear before the District Forum on
    30.12.1999.

      

    Appeal
    allowed.

       


         


 Back

  


    




 

     

    
     

What is Law     Right of Doctors     Responsibilities     Negligence     Consents     Records     Cases
       
Legislations     Medical Ethics      FAQ’s

   
    

General
     

SUPREME COURT CASES
  
 
RIGHT TO PRACTICE TO PRACTICE ALLOPATHY

  • Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors.: AIR 1999, SC 468
     
    In 1999 the Supreme Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab has held that Ayurvedic vaids and Unani hakims cannot practice allopathic medicine unless such right is conferred by State Law. The position with regard to medical practitioners of Indian medicine holding degrees in integrated courses is that:- if any State Act recognises their qualification as sufficient for registration in the State Medical register, the prohibition from them practicing allopathic medicine contained in Section 15 (2) (b) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 will not apply. 
       
    So far there is no provision in the State Acts viz. Bombay Medical Practitioners Act, 1938 or the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act under which the right to practice any system of medicine is conferred on practitioners of Indian medicine registered under those Acts. Definition of Indian Medicine under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 means system of Indian Medicine commonly known as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb whether supplemented or not by such modern advances as the Central Council may declare by notification from time to time.
      
    The definition, however, enables such practitioners of Indian Medicine to make use of modern advances in various sciences such as Radiology, ECG, Blood picture report etc. for the purpose of practicing their own system. The flip side of this judgment is that practitioners of other systems of medicine cannot practice allopathic system of medicine unless a State Law permits it. By analogy, allopathic practitioners also cannot prescribe drugs belonging to another system of medicine unless permitted by a State Law. As abundant precaution allopathic practitioners should only prescribe drugs from their own system of medicine -the judgment of Poonam Verma vs. Dr. Ashwin Patel.
        

HIGH COURT CASES
    
PROFESSIONAL HAZARD RESULTING IN HARM TO DOCTOR

  • Suraj Mal Chhajer v. State and others the Rajasthan High Court (AIR 1999 Raj. 82)
       
    In Suraj Mal Chhajer v. State and others the Rajasthan High Court (AIR 1999 Raj. 82) awarded interim compensation to the father of a deceased resident doctor who died due to contracting Hepatitis-B while in service. An Inquiry Committee had given a report in which it had stated that, “She might not have contracted the disease, had she been vaccinated earlier against Hepatitis-B and adopted other preventive measures, such as using disposable syringes, needles, gloves, aprons, etc. There may be a lapse in the availability of these above mentioned preventive measures.”
         

  • Naved Ahmed V. Dr. Rakesh Kacker
    I(2000)CPJ 201 S C DRC, UP
      
    Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(C)-Complaint-Medical Negligence-Crimal case pending Defense if disclosed would prejudice defense in criminal case-Proceedings before Commission cannot  continue Complaint-Case stayed till disposal of criminal case.
     
    Held: If the Opposite party is directed to file a written statement then naturally his defense which he has to take before the Criminal Court which is pending ,prejudice will be caused to him. No doubt the finding arrived at by the Criminal Court are not binding on the Civil Court, but even thenone has to judge the matter in the light of the right available to an accused not to disclose him defense in a Criminal Court before the completion of the prosecution evidence. The defense by the accused is disclosed at the time of his statement under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter in the evidence which he may lead in defense of his case. These two statements of the accused are recorded after completion of the prosecution evidence. Before that the accused cannot be compelled to disclose his defense even though he may put suggestions to the witness of the prosecution during the course of cross-examination which may indicate the defense which the accused is going to take. It is unto the accused to disclose his defense during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or not but he cannot be compelled to do so.
         
    therefore, it will be expedient in the in the interest of justice to stay the proceedings of this case till the criminal case us decided.
           

  • K.E. RAJESH v. PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL
    III (2000) CPJ 354
       
    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal – Kerala Co-operative Societies Act – Sections 69(1) and 70 – Medical Negligence – Complainant treated in Co-operative Hospital – Complainant treated in Co-operative Hospital – Complaint filed alleging medical negligence – District Forum  dismissed complaint is barred under Section 69(1) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act – Appeal – Complainant not a member of Society – Case of medical negligence does not acquire character of “business” of Society – Complaint is maintainable.
     
    Held: Here the complainant is not a member of the Society. Unless it is shown, the case of negligence in treatment by the doctors of a cooperative hospital could acquire the character of “business” mentioned in Section 69(1), a dispute touching the said business cannot fall within the scope of Section 69(1) so as to require the same to be referred to the Registrar for adjudication. Undoubtedly medical negligence involves adjudication of the question whether the doctor attended the patient with the care and diligence expected of him. It will involve the question whether hospital was equipped for attending the ailment of the patient. This involves both legal and factual questions and, therefore, normally such questions cannot be treated to have been intended to be dealt with by Registrar of Cooperative Society.
     
    Held further: Having noted that a wide interpretation cannot be given to the word “dispute” in Section 69(1) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, in the context of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it has to be helm that the dispute of the nature in question would not fall within the scope of Section 69(1). Now it becomes necessary to advert to Section 70(1) (b) of the Act which gives power to the Registrar to transfer matter for disposal to any person who has been invested by the Government with power in that behalf.  When the Registrar cannot deal with a matter, in such matters has to be transferred it to competent person who is invested with powers in that behalf. Admittedly there is no such person appointed or is invested with such powers to adjudicate matters relating to medical negligence. Even assuming such course is open to the Registrar; the “dispute” should be one which could take in a matter like medical negligence. As already seen the word “dispute” in the context has to be held to have been used only to get a restricted meaning to take in only such matter can resolve. And “business” could means only actual trading or other similar business activity when the Society is authorized to enter into. Therefore, one cannot say that the matter involving question of medical negligence death with by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies so that Section 69(1) of the Act; therefore, the said section cannot be made applicable.
     
    Result: Appeal allowed.
     
    ORDER
     
    Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President – Complainant in O.P. 1153/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur is the appellant. Complainant alleged before the  District Forum that he was admitted in the first opposite party-hospital for treatment, he underwent surgery in July, 1997 and the surgery was performed by the second opposite party. After the surgery he had severe pain. When he complained to the second opposite party, he was disappear by exercise. Inspite of exercise for a long period, the defect did not disappear. So he had to undergo another surgery. He is a manual worker; his endeavour to work and earn for his living is affected by the negligent treatment  imparted by the opposite parties. Therefore, he wanted a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation. Version was filed. The District Forum proceeded to hear the complainant’s Counsel and the respondent. On hearing them the District Forum dismissed the complain holding that under Section 69 of Kerala Cooperative Societies Act (for short, the Act) the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The said dismissal is challenged in this appeal.
     
    2.  Learned Counsel for the appellant urged, the view taken by the District Forum that the complaint is not maintainable fore it in view of Section 69 (1) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is not correct with due regard to the nature of the dispute involved. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the complainant that dispute touching the business of the Society should be one connected with actual business or such other matter and it cannot include a case of medical negligence. Reliance was also made by the learned Counsel on the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969  SC 1320, Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd.v.M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors. Reliance was also made by the learned Counsel on the decision of the Supreme  Court in 1995 (3) CPR 412= III(1995) CPJ 1 (SC), Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Santha & Anr., wherein the Supreme Court went into the question of jurisdiction of the Commission and forum to deal with the case of medical negligence and held that these FOR A constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have got legal background and, therefore, they are competent to adjudicate upon the said issues. This decision is relied on in support of his argument as to competency of Forum to adjudicate the matter.
     
    On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent sought to support the view of the District Forum maintaining that even assuming that the Registrar of Co-operative Society himself may not be able to adjudicate a case of medical negligence, since he could transfer such type of dispute to any person who has been invested with power by the Government to deal with the same, there could be no difficulty for the body constituted under Section 70(1) of the Act to deal with the matter. Reference was made by the learned Counsel on the decision of this Commission in V.Viswanatha Pillai & Anr.v.the Branch Manager, Kottayam D.C.B. Ltd. & Anr., 1996(1) CPR 453.
     
    3.  The whole argument of the appellant is based on the character and nature of the business. Here the complainant is not a member of the Society. Unless it is shown, the case of negligence in treatment by the doctors of a co-operative hospital could acquire the character of “business” mentioned in Section 69(1), a dispute touching the said business cannot fall within the scope of Section 69(1) so as to require the same to be referred to the Registrar for adjudication. Undoubtedly medical negligence involves adjudication of the question whether the doctor attended the patient with the care and deligence expected of him. It will involve the question whether hospital was equipped for attending the ailment of the patient. The involves both legal and factual questions and, therefore, normally such questions cannot be treated to have been intended to be dealt with by Registrar of Cooperative Society. The Supreme Court in Deccan Jagraj Jain & Ors. (supra), referred to early, interpreted the word ‘business’ in Sub-section (1) of Section 91 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (32 of 1961) and observed that the said word ‘business’ is used in narrower sense and it means the actual trading or other similar business activity of the Society which the Society is authorized to enter into under the Act, Rules and Bye-laws. In Para 23 of the said decision the Supreme Court states one other limitation, and interprets the word “dispute” and holds, the word “dispute” covers only those disputes which are capable of being resolved by the Registrar or his nominee. The competency of the Forum to  adjudicate cases of medical negligence has been gone into by the Supreme Court in the decision in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Santha & Ors. (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held that the FOR A are competent and equipped to go into the question of medical negligence particularly in the context of the fact the President of the Forum since is well-versed in law and has judicial or legal experience, they are in a position to adjudicate both the legal and factual question that could arise in such matters.
      
    4.   Having noted that a wide interpretation cannot be given to the word “dispute” in Section 69(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, in the context of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it has to be held, that the dispute of the nature in question would not fall within the scope of Section69(1). Now it becomes necessary to advert to Section 70(1)(b) of the Act which gives power to the Registrar to transfer matter for disposal to any person who has been invested by the Government with power in that behalf. When the Registrar cannot deal with a matter, in such matters has to be transferred it to competent person who is invested with powers in that behalf. Admittedly there is no such person appointed or is invested with such powers to adjudicate matters relating to medical negligence. As already seen the word “dispute”  in the context has to be held to have been used only to get a restricted meaning to take in only such matter can resolve. And “business” could means only actual trading or other similar business activity when the Society is authorized to enter into. Therefore, one cannot say that the matter involving question of medical negligence dealt with by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies so that Section 69(1) of the Act; therefore, the said section cannot be made applicable.
     
    5.  The decision in 1996(1) CPR 453 (supra) is clearly distinguishable. (V.Viswanatha Pillai & Anr.v. The Branch Manager, Kottayam D.C.B. Ltd. & Anr.). The same concerns a loan transaction we have already noted that the Supreme Court in Deccan Mercantile Co-operative Bank v. Dalichand (supra), held that the “business” is used in the Co-operative Societies Act in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or other similar business activity of the Society. Therefore, the said decision cannot be made applicable to a case involving medical negligence. When that is the position the order passed by the District Forum cannot be supported and the same is liable to be set aside and the matters has to be remitted to the District Forum for disposal in accordance with law.
     
    6.  In the result the appeal is allowed the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Forum, which shall restore the complaint to file, give opportunity to opposite party to file their version and will dispose of in accordance with law. There will be no orders as to costs in this appeal. Parties shall appear before the District Forum on 30.12.1999.
      
    Appeal allowed.
       

         

 Back
  

    

 

By |2022-07-20T16:43:48+00:00July 20, 2022|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Doctor’s Favour / General

About the Author: