JUDGMENT : Neerja Singh : - 1.This appeal arises from the order dated 28-12-05, passed by District ConsumerDispute Redressal Forum, Khandwa ,directing the appellant doctor to pay Rs . 29,994/-with 6% interest and costs Rs . 1000/-, to therespondent-complainant. 2.The facts in brief, as stated by the respondent-complainant, are that therespondent's minor son (hereinafter referred to as the child) was sufferingfrom fever for which he was taking him to Khandwa District Hospital on 20-02-03 . While waiting at the bus stop theappellant approached him and offered to treat his son at much less the cost hewould have to pay in Khandwa . Lured by hisassurances, he agreed and paid the requisite fees. The appellant gave aninjection and some tablets. As there was no improvement in the child'scondition, he consulted him again on 23-2-03 .The appellant again gave injection and medicines. However the child's conditiondeteriorated further. He then took him to Khandwa on 25-02-05 , where the child wasadmitted in the ICU. From there he was referred to Indore the next day. Despite beingtreated by a number of doctors his condition did not improve. The respondentstates that even today the child has 10-15 seizures in a day and is mentallyimbalanced due to the treatment given by the appellant. 3.The appellant has denied all the allegations. He denies ever taking any fees ortreating the child. He states that the respondent also made a false complaintagainst him with the police, and a case was filed. He also denies that he hasany clinic by the name of Mallik clinic in Dulhar village. 4.We have heard the respective contentions of the learned Counsels of the partieson the merits of the case and perused the documents on record. 5.It is true that no prescription of the respondent has been filed on record.However, it is the standard practice of such practitioners, not to give anyprescription. The allegations of the respondent are supported by his affidavit,and that of another witness, Prem Singh. The seizurememo of the police also evidences that the appellant runs a clinic andallopathic medicines were found at the clinic. There was also no reason for therespondent to falsely implicate him. Further, as no affidavit has been filed bythe appellant, the allegations are unrebutted . In ourconsidered view, there can be no doubt that the appellant treated the child for4-5 days. There was also no reason for therespondent to falsely implicate him. Further, as no affidavit has been filed bythe appellant, the allegations are unrebutted . In ourconsidered view, there can be no doubt that the appellant treated the child for4-5 days. 6.The medical prescriptions and other documents filed on record reveal that therespondent's son suffered from HSV encephalitis. Information available on theInternet tells us that Encephalitis is inflammation of the brain usually causedby a virus, with a high rate of fatality and often causes long-termneurological problems including memory loss and epilepsy. One of the most dangerousand most common causes of encephalitis is the herpes simplex virus (HSV). HSVis the same virus that causes cold sores around the mouth, but when it attacksthe brain it may occasionally be fatal. Fortunately, HSV encephalitis is veryrare. HSVencephalitis: A very rare manifestation of HSV is encephalitis in which thebrain tissue itself becomes infected by the virus. There are very few warningsigns, but patients with encephalitis tend to become confused and drowsy.Without prompt treatment with intravenous antivirals (usually aciclovir ) the condition is often fatal, andeven when treated rapidly often causes long-term neurological problemsincluding memory loss and epilepsy. Acuteviral encephalitides have a high mortality andmorbidity in all age groups. Early institution of appropriate medical treatmentcan alter the prognosis dramatically. 7.Obviously, the child was suffering from a serious ailment. The appellant is nota qualified medical practitioner. He treated the respondent's son, when heshould have referred him to higher centre immediately. Though the medication hegave could not be directly responsible for the condition of the child, he hadno business to prescribe medicines or give injections and delay treatment. Itis not possible to say whether the child would have made full recovery or not,but the fact remains that due to the 4-5 days delay in treatment, he was denieda fair chance of recovery. Treating the child for 4-5 days, without carryingout the requisite tests and without the necessary degree or certificate totreat patients, is gross negligence on the pan of the appellant. We see noinfirmity in the order of the Forum awarding compensation to the respondent. 8.The appeal thus fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.