State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Rajvinder Kaur & Ors. on 9 May, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1094 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 25.08.2006.
Date of Decision: 09.05.2011.
1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO NO.109-
111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Jallandhar.
(Both no.1 & 2 through its Authorized Signatory, Chief Regional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.109-111,
Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Rajvinder Kaur wife of Sh. Jaswinder Singh, R/o Sh. Boota singh,
Resident of Delhi Gate, Kartarpur, Tehsil and District Jallandhar.
2. Preet Hospital, near Football Chowk, Jallandhar, through Dr. Amarbir
Singh (MS).
3.
Dr. Harinder Minhas (wrongly mentioned in appeal as 'Dr. Harminder
Minhas') C/o Preet Hospital, near Football Chowk, Jallandhar.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
23.06.2006 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jallandhar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Ms Harsimrat Rai, Advocate for
Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate.
For respondent no.1 : None.
For respondent no.2 : Exparte.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, appellants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 23.06.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jallandhar (in short "the District Forum"). First Appeal No.1094 of 2006 2
2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Rajvinder Kaur, respondent no.1/complainant (in short, "respondent no.1") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), pleading that she was married with Jaswinder Singh in the month of February, 2004 and became pregnant. She came to respondent no.3 for medical check-up on 19.06.2004, who checked her up and advised her to visit on 25.06.2004. On 25.06.2004, blood sugar of respondent no.1 was tested by respondent no.3 and advised her to come again on the next day. On 26.06.2004, respondent no.3 referred her to Dr. Rajnish Kant Nagpal (MD) for scanning. Scanning was accordingly done and the report was handed over to respondents no.2 & 3 and on perusing the same, it was told that the abortion was to be done. The abortion was done and some medicines were prescribed.
3. On 02.07.2004, acute pain started in the abdomen of respondent no.1 and on 03.07.2004 in the morning, respondent no.1 visited respondents no.2 & 3, who admitted her in the hospital and gave some medicines, but there was no relief in the pain.
4. On 04.07.2004, respondent no.1 visited Dr. Harinder Kaur, Hospital & Maternity Home, 520, New Jawahar Nagar, Jallandhar and told the entire story to Dr. Harleen Kaur, who told that proper abortion was not done and Dr. Harleen Kaur again did the abortion and thereafter, respondent no.1 became fit. Respondent no.1 lost her child due to deficiency in service on the part of respondents no.2 & 3 and they charged Rs.25,000/- and prayed that respondents no.2 & 3 be directed to pay Rs.10.00 lacs as compensation.
5. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable and is based on incorrect facts. On merits, it was admitted that respondent no.1 first visited the answering respondents for antenatal check-upon 25.05.2004 and not on 19.06.2004. Her L.M.P. (last menstrual period) was 02.04.2004 according to which, she was seven weeks pregnant. Check-up was done and random blood sugar test was advised which was found to be normal. Test was done First Appeal No.1094 of 2006 3 on 25.05.2004 and not on 25.06.2004. The reports of other routine investigations where respondent no.1 had gone, were perused and she was advised ultrasound which was done by respondent no.2 hospital and USG report showed a live intrauterine pregnancy of 7 + 2 weeks which corresponded with her period of gestation and she was advised T. Folvite 1 OD and T. Doxinate ISOS and was asked to come after three weeks.
6. Her next visit was on 18.06.2004 and not on 19.06.2004 as mentioned in the complaint and at that time, she had no fresh complaints and her vitals were found to be normal. She was advised Hepatitis B Surface Antigen test which was found to be negative and she was told to continue T. Folvite and to come after three weeks i.e. on 09.07.2004 as mentioned in the OPD slip and not on 25.06.2004, as mentioned in the complaint.
7. On 26.06.2004, respondent no.1 came to the hospital in the emergency hours in the evening with complaint of spotting since 1.00 p.m. She was advised ultrasound and the same was done at NMR Scan by Dr. Nagpal. The report showed a missed abortion with no cardiac or somatic activity of 8 + 4 weeks. At that time, respondent no.1 was 12 + 1 weeks according to her dates. USG report clearly showed that the baby was already dead for approximately 4 weeks and the allegation that she lost her child due to the fault of the hospital, is false. Respondent no.1 was explained and told that she was carrying a dead pregnancy and was advised to have therapeutic D & C on the next date, but she insisted to have the same on the same day, as she did not want to carry a dead baby any longer and accordingly, the products of conception were evacuated and she was discharged. Rs.2500/- were charged and not Rs.25,000/- and thereafter, respondent no.1 did not come to respondent no.3. Respondent no.1 visited the hospital of respondent no.2 on 03.07.2004 and on that date, respondent no.3 was on outstation leave and in the hospital, she was advised some medicines and was asked to come for follow-up by respondent no.3, but respondent no.1 never visited First Appeal No.1094 of 2006 4 thereafter. Denying all other allegations contained in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
8. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections regarding maintainability, concealment of material facts were raised. On merits, it was pleaded that respondent no.3 was not insured with the appellant. The appellant has given professional indemnity policy to Dr. Amarbir Singh for the period 23.12.2003 to 22.12.2004 vide cover note no.48/04/0255/927986 dated 11.12.2003. Respondent no.1 was neither medically treated by Dr. Amarbir Singh nor any professional negligence is attributed to him and respondent no.1 is not a consumer qua the appellant. All other allegations of the complaint were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
10. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the report Ex.C11 clearly proves that respondents no.2 & 3 have not done operation with proper technique and there was deficiency in service and according to document Ex.C9 for which respondent no.1 had to suffer pain and bleeding, she was not guided properly on 03.07.2004 and respondent no.1 has to pay fee to the second doctor and considering the totality of the circumstances, she is entitled to the refund of the fee and has undergone pain and stress for seven days and awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation as litigation expenses against the appellants and respondents no.2 & 3.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.06.2006, the appellants have come up in appeal.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
First Appeal No.1094 of 2006 5
13. Neither the counsel for respondent no.1 nor anybody else on behalf of respondent no.1 has appeared at the time of arguments.
14. Respondent no.2 has not contested the appeal and was proceeded against exparte.
15. Respondents no.2 & 3 have not filed any appeal against the impugned order dated 23.06.2006 and the order qua them has become final. Dr. Amarbir Singh in his affidavit Ex.OP1/B, deposed that he has obtained insurance policy of professional indemnity from the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Dr. Harinder Minhas (respondent no.3) has given a false affidavit. Cover note is Ex.OP1/C as per which, Dr. Amarbir Singh, Preet Hospital, Football Chowk, Jallandhar was professionally indemnified from 23.12.2003 to 12.12.2004. As per affidavit of Satish Katyal, Senior Divisional Manager, respondent no.3 was not insured with the appellant insurance company and the professional indemnity policy was of Dr. Amarbir Singh and this policy was not for the faculty of respondent no.2 hospital. The policy in question, on the basis of which the appellant has been impleaded, is an individual professional indemnity policy for Dr. Amarbir Singh only and not for Preet Hospital or respondent no.3 and no medical or professional negligence is attributed to Dr. Amarbir Singh.
16. From the above discussion, it is clear that the professional indemnity policy was issued in the name of Dr. Amarbir Singh by the appellants insurance company and other doctors or the faculty of Preet Hospital was not covered under the policy and nothing is attributed to Dr. Amarbir Singh, nor he has treated respondent no.1 in any manner and the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay anything to respondent no.1, whereas the District Forum has held the appellants also liable to pay the awarded amount, but as discussed above, the order of the District Forum qua the appellant insurance company is not sustainable.
17. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants insurance company is accepted and the impugned order dated 23.06.2006 passed First Appeal No.1094 of 2006 6 against the appellants insurance company, is set aside. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that as stated above, the impugned order under appeal dated 23.06.2006 passed by the District Forum has become final against respondents no.2 & 3, as no appeal has been filed by the said respondents. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
18. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.12,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 02.05.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member May 09, 2011.
(Gurmeet Singh)