HIGH COURTOFCHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR a w^s. :^^^^1^ Sinale Bench Hon'bleShri Dilio Raosaheb Deshmukh.J. ^ %. First Apoeal No.95 of 2007 Vasu Deo Madhu.aged about 25 years son of Late Buddheshwar Madhu, occupation-Labourer, resident of-Viaey Coiony, Dharamjaigarh, Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Appellant Plaintiff Respondents Defendants iNl versus 1. State , of Chhattisgarh, .through-the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) , 2. Dr. Arjun Singh Thakur, son of Late Jagdeo Prasad Thakur,aged about 49 years, occupation-Doctor, Block Medical Officer, Government Hospital- CSharamjaigarh, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) At present-under suspension, Head Quarter, Ambikapur, Surguja through- the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Govt.Hospital,Distt.Surguja(C.G.) FirstaGpeal under Section96 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 Present : Shri A. N. Bhakta, counse! for the appeliant. Shri Akhi! Agrawai.P.L. for the State/respondent No.1 . ORALORDER {Passed on 13thAugust, 2007$ Heard on admission. i ..v; (2) The appellant/plairitiff is aggrieved bythejudgment and decree dated 18-07-2007 passed bythe First Additional District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.12-8/2006 whereby the suit for awardingcompensation df Rs.50,000/- on the ground of negligence/omission ofthe respondent No.2 |in treatingthefatheroftheappellant/plaintiffwasdismissed. • (3) It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appeilant that Buddheshwar Madhu, the father 6f the appellant/plaintiff had consumed :1":: poison in excessive quantity on 16-05-2005 and on the same day he was admitted to the Govt. Hospital, Dharamjaigarh. (4) The appellant/plaintiff had pleaded that death of his father was as a result of omission by the respondent No.2 in giving immediate treatment. (5) The respondent No.2 had deposed that Buddheshwar Madhu was admitted at about 08.45 P.M. in a very critical condition due to excessive consumption, poison having spread all over his body. His testimony in para 3 is wholiy unrebutted that he provided immediate treatment and had done suction of th@ contents of the stomach as aiso the throat as also given every possible treatment to the best of his ability. The evidence pf respondent No.2 is alsb supported by Dashkand Ssndre D.W. 2. i (6) The learned First Additional District Judge, Raigarh has upon proper apprsciation of the evidence led by the parties recorded a finding that the appellant/plaintiff having failed to prove negligence was disentitled to compensation. In my considered opinion, the finding recorded by the First Additional District Judge, Raigarh is impeccable. It is not born.e out from the evidence led by the parties that there was any deiiberate omlssion or delay on the part of the respondent No.2 in giving treatment to the father of the appellanVplaintiff who died due to consumption of excessive quantity of poison. (7) No ground for interference in the impugned judgment and decree is seen. (8) In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge