JUDGMENT K.D. Shahi, Chairman - This appeal has been Bled against the order dated 4-2-2002. passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, dismissing the complaint of the appellant for compensation at the ground of medical negligence. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Held the complaint alleging that his wile Smt. Meena Devi had some breathing problem. The complainant contacted the opposite party Dr. M.L. Peshin, Peshin Hospital and Nursing Home. Niranjanpur, Dehradun. On 4-1-1997. Dr. Peshin examined the wife of the complainant and declared that she was suffering from stomach problem and certain tests were to be conducted before the start of treatment. The opposite party look ultra-sound examination six times and x-ray of Smt. Meena Devi seven times and diagnosed that she was having some kidney problem. The opposite party also asked that she is to be checked up by an electronic device to locate the stones in her kidney. The complainant got the said tests done and paid Rs.2,000/- of which no receipt was given. He had also paid a huge sum for x-ray and ultra-sound etc. He had also paid the nursing home charges of the room. The opposite party diagnosed that one kidney of Smt. Meena Devi had been damaged completely and had to be removed and the other kidney was also not in good shape and it had to be repaired. The opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the operation of the kidney. The complainant got his wile discharged. Then in May', 1997, the complainant brought his wife to Coronation Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Sharda who had some doubts on the report of the opposite party. Dr. Sharda advised her to have the x-ray and ultra-sound again which was done by Dr. Ashok Luthra. On looking these reports, Dr. Sharda declared that the kidney of Smt. Meena Devi was perfectly normal and there was no defect in it. The complainant spent Rs.2,500/- in these tests. The diagnosis of the opposite party was absolutely wrong and he had acted very negligently. The life of the complainant's wife would have been in great danger had she been operated upon. It is alleged that the opposite party in order to extract money from the complainant knowingly and wrongly diagnosed the kidney problem of the patient. The diagnosis of the opposite party was absolutely wrong and he had acted very negligently. The life of the complainant's wife would have been in great danger had she been operated upon. It is alleged that the opposite party in order to extract money from the complainant knowingly and wrongly diagnosed the kidney problem of the patient. The Insurance Company has been impleaded because the services of opposite party No. 1 have been insured. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.61,500/- as detailed in the complaint. 3. The opposite party No. 1, Dr. Peshin contested the petition and alleged that he has advised x-ray and ultra sound because Smt. Meena Devi, was having some urinary problem. He never advised of any test by electronic device. He was paid only Rs.3,500/- In total. He further, alleged that he never stated that one kidney of complainant's wife was damaged completely and have to be removed and the other kidney was in bad shape and was to be repaired. lie never demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for operation. He never advised to perform the surgery himself. 4. The opposite party, Insurance Company has also contested the claim on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the two. After hearing the learned counsel for, the parties, the learned Forum rejected the complaint against which order, the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone' through the records. We were in some doubts that the wife of the complainant is alive. She is not a party to the complaint and a complaint by her husband Shri Badri Prasad will not lie. However, the learned counsel for the complainant referred the ruling reported in M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia, and argued that even the beneficiaries can me the petition. According to the complaint, the complainant has spent the money. He is beneficiary and a complaint by him is maintainable. The only allegation is of wrong diagnosis. We have gone through the records. The doctor has done a number of x-rays and ultra-sounds to be sure of the actual illness of the patient. Admittedly, the patient was ill, admittedly she was admitted, admittedly she has spent money, admittedly a number of tests were done and an opinion was given. The only allegation is of wrong diagnosis. We have gone through the records. The doctor has done a number of x-rays and ultra-sounds to be sure of the actual illness of the patient. Admittedly, the patient was ill, admittedly she was admitted, admittedly she has spent money, admittedly a number of tests were done and an opinion was given. It is a settled principle of law as given in V. Chandra Shekhar v. Malar Hospitals Ltd. It. has been held as under: “No doubt true it is a getting revealed from the records filed that the opposite party hospital, on diagnosis, found out that the complainant had single Vessel Disease but on the contrary, it was diagnosed by the different hospital namely Apollo Hospital that he had Severe Triple Vessel Coronary Disease. Diagnosis is nothing but forming an opinion on examination of the patients suffering from a disease. Diagnosis may consist of physical as well as mechanical examination. Only on such examination. the opinion is formed as to the disease from which the patient Is suffering. The opinion formed or diagnosed may vary from one medical expert to another medical expert just like the diJ1erence of opinion as expressed by the lawyer regarding the factual matrix in the light of legal provisions. Only on the diagnosis, treatment is given. As respects wrong diagnosis and consequent treatment given, on occasions more than one. Superior Forums had expressed can not at all amount to negligence or deficiency in service on the part of such professionals." 6. The doctor did not do any operation. There is nothing on the record to show that he himself wanted to do the operation for money. The opinion of doctors may vary from doctor to doctor and wrong diagnosis, in itself, is no ground to hold the doctor negligent. It is not clear, what negligence the doctor has shown. In the report of Dr. Sharda as well, certain kidney problem have been shown. Matter was not referred to any expert for any opinion. The entire burden was on the complainant. It is alleged that Dr. Peshin has given certain treatment as well. Admittedly, the patient was having breathing trouble. It is not proved that any of the medicines given by the doctor was for the treatment of kidney. The ruling reported in Dr. Luxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. The entire burden was on the complainant. It is alleged that Dr. Peshin has given certain treatment as well. Admittedly, the patient was having breathing trouble. It is not proved that any of the medicines given by the doctor was for the treatment of kidney. The ruling reported in Dr. Luxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbold does not help the claimant because this case does not show that the doctor was not possessed or skill and knowledge and he has railed anywhere in his duties. There is nothing to show that any paper was with-held by the opposite party and raise report was ever given by the doctor. It is true that the appellant is a poor man. It is further, true that there might have been some false diagnosis but merely on the basis of false diagnosis, there cannot be any presumption of negligence, much less issuing deliberate false certificate for the purpose of operation. This appeal has got no force and is to be dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, cost or the appeal shall be easy. ORDER 7. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost easy. Appeal dismissed.