Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Balakrishna Eradi, President, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S.Chadha, Member, Dr.(Mrs.) R.Thamarajakshi, Member, 
Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.L.Choudhry, Member.

C.L. Chaudhry, J. Member

This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana dated 28th June, 1996 by which the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner herein, was dismissed. The facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the Complainant (Respondent herein) filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal against Dr. Ashok Dhawan - the Opposite Party on the ground that Dr.Dhawan was running a medical clinic at Karnal and that on 25th May, 1992 he gave an injection on the right arm of the Complainant without proper test after which his are stopped moving and he was unable to make use of the arm. The complainant consulted the opposite party with the complaint that his right arm was not moving at all. The opposite party advised the complainant for massage of vicks or balm but the complainant got no relief. Thereafter the complainant consulted a number of doctors and is stated to have spent a huge amount of Rs. 97,000/-. With these allegations, he preferred a complaint before the District Forum for award of compensation on the ground of negligence of the doctor.

The opposite party denied having provided any service to the complainant on the ground that no patient by the name of Surjeet Singh i.e. the complainant ever came to him and he never prescribed any injection to the complainant. A plea was also taken that the Forum had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint.

After taking into consideration the material placed on the record by the parties, the District Forum found that the opposite party had given an injection to the complainant on account of which the complainant suffered the disease called "Radial N.Palsy". On the question of quantum of compensation, the District Forum returned the finding that there was no direct evidence on the record to establish the loss suffered by the complainant except his bald assertion that he had spent about Rs. 70,000/- on his treatment. It was further observed by the District Forum that the complainant must have spent at least Rs. 10,000/- on his treatment. Consequently a direction was given to the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Cost of Rs. 2,000/- were also awarded against the opposite party.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant as well as the opposite party filed appeals before the State Commission which were dismissed by the impugned order.  The State Commission affirmed the finding of the District Forum on the question of negligence of the doctor. Regarding compensation, it was observed by the State Commission that no proof of having spent the amount was produced before the District Forum except complainant's bald assertion and the District Forum was right in awarding Rs. 10,000/- on account of amount spent on treatment as well as harassment caused to the complainant.  However, the matter did not rest there. The opposite party i.e. Dr. Dhawan - Revision Petitioner herein has preferred this revision petition by assailing the order of the State Commission.

Mr. Santosh Paul, counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner, canvassed before us that the District Forum and the StateCommission wrongly held that the petitioner had given an injection. We are afraid we cannot go into this question of fact in this revision petition in view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the Fora that the petitioner had given an injection to the complainant and on that account the complainant had suffered. The finding is based on the material placed on the record and calls for no interference. It was also contended by Mr.Paul that the compensation awarded by both the Fora was excvessive and on the higher side. We have considered this aspect. No material was placed on record by the complainant which could throw light as to how much amount the complainant had spent for his treatment. We find that the compensation of Rs. 10,000/-awarded to thecomplainant is on the higher side. In our opinion,it will meet the ends of justice if the compensation is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. As a result, the order of the District Forum as well as the StateCommission is modified to this extent. The complainant shall be entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. The petition stands disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own costs in these proceedings.