JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 20.04.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.45/2011 title Master Subhash Chand Versus The Principal Secretary (Health) & Ors. Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Complainant Master Subhash Chand aged eleven years through his father and natural guardian Shri Sukh Ram filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties pleaded therein that on dated 21.08.2009 complainant visited Govt. Regional Hospital Bilaspur District Bilaspur H.P. for treatment of pain in the left thumb of his feet. It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 namely Dr. Arvind Tondon attended the complainant and after checking the complainant prescribed Gentamycine injection of 40mg which was to be given thrice a day. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant went to opposite party No.5 for the purchase of medicine and opposite party No.5 delivered Gentamycine injection of 80mg contrary to prescription slip issued by Medical Officer. It is further pleaded that opposite No.4 administered the injection to the minor complainant. It is further pleaded that after administering the injection minor complainant sustained giddiness and severe pain in his left leg and matter was immediately reported to opposite parties No.3 and 4. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant was admitted in the hospital and thereafter complainant was referred to IGMC Hospital Shimla. It is further pleaded that complainant was informed that problem in the left leg occurred to the minor due to administration of heavy dosage of injection in the nerve of minor complainant. It is pleaded that age of minor was 11 years and future prospects of minor diminished and minor became permanently handicapped. Complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 500000/- (Five lac). In addition complainant sought relief of Rs. 5100/- (Five thousand one hundred) as litigation charges. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 pleaded therein that consumer complaint against Medical Officer posted in Government Hospital is not maintainable. It is pleaded that pain sustained by complainant is not attributable due to heavy dosage of Gentamycine injection. It is further pleaded that injection was given to the minor strictly in conformity with the age, weight and condition of the complainant. It is further pleaded that heavy dosage was not prescribed. It is pleaded that pain sustained by complainant is not attributable due to heavy dosage of Gentamycine injection. It is further pleaded that injection was given to the minor strictly in conformity with the age, weight and condition of the complainant. It is further pleaded that heavy dosage was not prescribed. It is further pleaded that complainant be relegated to civil court. It is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file the consumer complaint and complainant is estopped to file the consumer complaint on account of his own acts, deeds and conduct. It is further pleaded that proper dosage of injection was given to the minor complainant. It is further pleaded that as per medical jurisprudence maximum dosage of Gentamycine which could be administered to 10 years minor is 234 mg per day. It is further pleaded that only 120 mg in a day was given to the minor. It is further pleaded that no negligence was committed by opposite parties No. 1 and 2. It is further pleaded that no consideration amount was received from the complainant and free service was given to the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 pleaded therein that service of Govt. Medical Officer did not fall within the domain of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is pleaded that charges of medical negligence are denied. It is further pleaded that complainant be relegated to civil court. It is further pleaded that 234 mg dosage was permissible to the minor aged ten years and it is further pleaded that only 120mg was administered. It is further pleaded that respondent No.3 did not administer any injection to the complainant. It is further pleaded that co-respondent No.3 has only prescribed the medicine in OPD slip on dated 21.08.2009. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 5. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.4 pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No.4. It is pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that complainant did not pay any consideration amount and free service was given and consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that complainant be relegated to civil court. It is pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that complainant did not pay any consideration amount and free service was given and consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that complainant be relegated to civil court. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 6. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.5 pleaded therein that it was duty of co-respondent No.4 to administered proper dosage. It is pleaded that co-opposite party No.5 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 7. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by complainant. 8. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 9. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. Respondent No.5 was ex-parte. 10. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by minor handicapped complainant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 11. Minor handicapped complainant filed affidavit through his natural guardian Shri Sukh Ram in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent visited Govt. Regional Hospital Bilaspur District Bilaspur H.P. in the year 2009. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.3 prescribed Gentamycine injection of 40 mg which was to be given thrice a day. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.5 issued Gentamycine injection of 80 mg contrary to the quantity mentioned by Medical Officer i.e. opposite party No.3 in medico prescription slip. There is further recital in the affidavit that injection was administered by opposite party No.4 i.e. nurse Smt. Neena Upadhya. There is further recital in the affidavit that after administering injection minor sustained giddiness and severe pain in his left leg. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.3 prescribed Gentamycine injection of 40 mg whereas it ought to be 20 mg. There is further recital in the affidavit that instead of Gentamycine injection of 40 mg opposite party No.5 gave Gentamycine injection of 80 mg. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.3 prescribed Gentamycine injection of 40 mg whereas it ought to be 20 mg. There is further recital in the affidavit that instead of Gentamycine injection of 40 mg opposite party No.5 gave Gentamycine injection of 80 mg. There is further recital in the affidavit that condition of minor did not improve and medical experts have given opinion that due to administration of heavy dosage in the left leg in nerve portion minor sustained severe pain. There is further recital in the affidavit that age of minor was 11 years at the time of administration of injection. State Commission has perused all the annexures filed by complainant through his natural guardian carefully. 12. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed affidavit of Dr. V.K. Chaudhary Chief Medical officer Bilaspur aged 55 years in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that no heavy dosage was prescribed. There is further recital in the affidavit that maximum dosage of Gentamycine injection which could be administered to a minor aged ten years was 234 mg per day. There is further recital in the affidavit that only 120 mg in a day was given to the minor. There is further recital in the affidavit that no medical negligence was committed by the opposite parties. 13. Opposite party No.3 Dr. Arvind Tandon filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent was posted at Govt. Regional Hospital Bilaspur as Medical Officer during the year 2009. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has given prescription as per requirement of patient. There is further recital in the affidavit that no medical negligence was committed by opposite party No.3. There is further recital in the affidavit that no heavy dosage was given to the minor by opposite party No.3. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party No.3 did not administer the injection to the minor complainant personally. 14. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of minor complainant that opposite parties No.1 to 4 have committed deficiency in service by way of administering Gentamycine injection of 80 mg to the minor complainant aged eleven years is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant was treated in Government Hospital Bilaspur and no consideration amount for medical treatment was obtained from complainant. It is proved on record that complainant was treated in Government Hospital Bilaspur and no consideration amount for medical treatment was obtained from complainant. It was held by Hon''ble Apex Court of India in case reported in titled Indian Medical Association Versus V.P. Shantha & Ors , (1996) AIR SC 550. (Three Judges Bench) that service rendered by Government Hospital without consideration amount would not fall within the definition of service as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hon''ble Apex Court of India has further held that payment of token amount for registration purpose would not alter the position in respect of Govt. Doctors and Govt. Hospitals. It is well settled law that ruling given by Hon''ble Apex Court of India is binding upon all Courts, Tribunals and Commissions as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Even State Commission has perused the prescription slip issued by Medical Officer and in the prescription slip there is no mention of any consideration amount. Even opposite parties No.1 to 4 pleaded that services were rendered free of costs without any consideration amount. In view of ruling citedit is held that consumer complaint against opposite parties No. 1 to 4 is not maintainable. Even there is no medical expert report that medical negligence was committed by Medical Officer. See Medical Superintendent Baba Saheb Ambedkar Memorial Hospital & Anr. Versus Manjeri Sinha , (2017) 4 CPR 822. See S. Saravanan Versus Rasi Clinic & Ors , (2017) 2 CPR 272. See Ashok Kumar Pathak Versus Swarnava Roy & Anr , (2017) 1 CPR 251. 15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of minor complainant that opposite party No.5 has committed deficiency in service by way of delivering Gentamycine injection of 80 mg contrary to prescription slip issued by Medical officer is decided accordingly. It is held that opposite party No.5 was under legal obligation to supply Gentamycine injection strictly as per prescription slip issued by Medical Officer. It is proved on record that vide Annexure C-1 Medical Officer has prescribed Gentamycine injection of 40mg but opposite party No.5 has issued Gentamycine injection of 80mg contrary to prescription slip issued by Medical Officer. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party No.5 has committed deficiency in service by way of issuing Gentamycine injection of 80 mg instead of Gentamycine injection of 40mg. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party No.5 has committed deficiency in service by way of issuing Gentamycine injection of 80 mg instead of Gentamycine injection of 40mg. It is well settled law that medical shops are under legal obligation to issue medicine strictly as per prescription slips issued by Medical Officer. Medical shops could not be allowed to issue medicines contrary to prescription slips issued by Medical Officer. It is also proved on record that opposite party No.5 has also received consideration amount from minor complainant through his natural guardian for Gentamycine 80mg injection. No reason assigned by opposite party No.5 as to why opposite party No.5 has issued Gentamycine injection of 80mg contrary to prescription slip issued by Medical Officer. Hence deficiency on the part of opposite party No.5 is writ large. 16. Submission of learned advocates appearing on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 4 that Government Hospitals and Doctors did not come within the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is decided accordingly. It is held by Hon''ble Apex Court of India (Three Judges Bench ) in case reported in titled Indian Medical Association Versus V.P. Shantha & Ors , (1996) AIR SC 550. that free service rendered by Government Hospitals and Doctors does not fall within the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It proved on record that complainant was treated at Government Hospital Bilaspur and it is also proved on record that no consideration amount was received by opposite parties No.1 to 4 from minor complainant for medical treatment. Hence in view of ruling citedit is held that consumer complaint against opposite parties No.1 to 4 is not maintainable. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum is partly set aside. It is ordered that consumer complaint against opposite parties No.1 to 4 is dismissed and minor complainant is relegated to civil court for redressal of grievance against opposite parties No. 1 to 4. It is further ordered that consumer complaint against opposite party No.5 is partly allowed. It is ordered that opposite party No.5 would pay compensation to minor handicapped complainant aged eleven years to the tune of Rs. It is further ordered that consumer complaint against opposite party No.5 is partly allowed. It is ordered that opposite party No.5 would pay compensation to minor handicapped complainant aged eleven years to the tune of Rs. 100000/- (One lac) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till realization within one month after the receipt of certified copy of order of State Commission. It is further ordered that in addition opposite party No.5 would pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 5100/- (Five thousand one hundred) to minor handicapped complainant. Order of learned District Forum is modified to this extent only. Prescription slip dated 21.08.2009 annexure C-1, medical bill issued by opposite party No.5 annexure C-2 dated 21.08.2009 and handicapped certificate annexure C-3 issued in favour of minor complainant would form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.