The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled out that a homoeopathic doctor is not qualified to prescribe allopathic medicines and will be liable for medical negligence and has to pay compensation if a patient suffers from medical complications.

The verdict by the apex consumer commission came almost two decades after a woman in Nagpur died after a homoeopathy doctor gave injections to her for stomach pain. The commission directed the doctor to pay compensation of Rs 10 lakh to her family members and stated that he is a diploma holder in homoeopathy and is not qualified to practice allopathic medicine.

The incident took place in 2000 when the woman was taken to the doctor by her family members as she complained of stomach pain. The doctor gave two injections —Baralgan and Dexamethasone. Soon after the injections, the woman felt uncomfortable and died. The post-mortem report certified the death to anaphylactic reaction caused by the injections.

The doctor was held guilty of medical negligence by a bench of Dr S M Kantikar and Dinesh Singh. They stated that the doctor is a diploma holder in homoeopathy and is unqualified to practice allopathic medicine, and is liable for medical negligence. It upheld the state consumer commission order holding the doctor guilty and increased the amount of compensation from Rs three lakh to Rs 10 lakh and has granted him four weeks’ time to pay the money.

The NCDRC said that it is clear that the opposite party (doctor), being a homoeopathic practitioner, doesn’t have any authority to administer allopathic medicines i.e. injections. Hence, without any authority he administered the said injections of allopathic medicines and as the patient’s death was caused due to reaction of these mentioned injections, it has proved negligence on his part.

The commission rejected the appeal of the doctor who contended that he should not be made responsible for negligence as he has been acquitted in the criminal case lodged by deceased’s family. It said that the responsibility for a civil wrong and responsibility for a criminal offence are different. The objective of criminal law is to punish, the objective of civil law is to compensate, and they basically differ in their context and consequence. The two are not equally exclusive, but co-extensive.

The NCDRC said that they had consider the case in its entirety, and, specifically, that the death of the patient occurred in 2000, and the verdict came now in 2019. The patient died at a young age (in her 20’s), and had left behind her husband and two minor children (as of then). It is difficult to quantify life in monetary terms, and compensation of Rs 10 lakh with simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of arguments before this Commission from October 2018 would be just and reasonable in the totality of the facts and specificities of the case.