JUDGMENT
J.K. Mehra, J. (Member)
1. This revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, whereby the State Commission upheld the order of District Forum. The facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the District Forum are that the complainant, Praveen Kumar, (minor, represented by his father) was admitted in the respondent’s hospital on 9th April, 1996 for fever. After examination the fever was found to be at 101°F and as per the advice of the respondent/Doctor the nurse gave the complainant Paracetamol injection on the left buttock. Immediately the left leg of the complainant became paralysed. On this fact being brought to the notice of the respondent, the complainant was told that he would recover after some time. On the next day the complainant was discharged. On 11th April, 1996 the fever got aggravated and the child, i.e. the complainant, was admitted in the same hospital and he was discharged on 13.1.1996. On 17th April, 1996 the complainant was admitted in the Medical College Hospital for further treatment where the doctors opined that sciatic nerve of the minor complainant had been damaged and the Doctor advised the complainant for expert treatment. Then the complainant was brought to West Fort Hospital where the doctors opined that the paralysis of the left leg was due to injury caused to the sciatic nerve due to Paracetamol injection. When this fact was brought to the notice of the respondent, the respondent could offer only a sum of Rs. 500/-, Dissatisfied with the attitude of the respondent/Doctor, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 3,95,000/-.
2. Upon notice being issued, the opposite party filed its reply disputing the contentions of the complainant. The District Forum upon hearing both, the parties framed the following points for determination (i) Is there any negligence on the part of the respondent in administering Paracetamol injection to the minor complainant ? (ii) Has the complainant sustained any injury due to the negligence of the respondent ? (iii) Is the complainant entitled to get the compensation claimed for ? (iv) Reliefs and costs.
3. The District Forum after a detailed analysis of the facts and law on the above mentioned points held that due to negligence on the part of the Nurse in giving Paracetamol intra muscular injection on the buttock of the minor complainant the sciatic nerve of the complainant got injured and the minor complainant developed the present foot drop which cannot be completely cured, as opined by P.W. 2. While holding so, the District Forum, after taking all the factors into consideration, fixed the compensation at Rs. 1 lakh. The District Forum also allowed costs at Rs. 500/-.
4. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the opposite party doctor went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit. Hence the opposite party/Doctor has come in revision before us.
5. While admitting the revision petition we directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000/-before the State Commission and stayed the order of the State Commission.
6. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. The main contention of the petitioner is that the allegations made in the complaint are against the Nurse and the Nurse was not made a party to the proceedings before the Fora and hence the complaint should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. But during the course of arguments it is not disputed that the Nurse administered the injection under the direct supervision of the respondent/Doctor and the Nurse was employed by the Doctor himself. Even if the Nurse is not made a party but in the face of the facts proved on record the employer of the Nurse cannot escape liability. He is responsible for the treatment given and also for the actions in administering such treatment by his employees who did so under his direction and supervision and is vicariously liable for their such actions.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are in agreement with the decision of the District Forum which was upheld by the State Commission and find no reason to interfere with the decision of the State Commission in exercise of our re visional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismiss the revision petition.
Before parting with the case we observe that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- that has been deposited with the State Commission shall be paid by the State Commission to the complainant/the child along with the interest accrued on it within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner herein also directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant, as directed by the District Forum, with interest @ 10% p.a. from two months from the date of the order of the District Forum. The revision petition is dismissed in the above terms with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/-.