State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Maninderjit Kaur vs Ritu Rani on 1 July, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 325 of 2012
Date of institution: 15.3.2012
Date of Decision: 1.7.2015
1. Dr. Maninderjit Kaur w/o Sukhbir Singh, C/o Sant Prem Singh N.R.I.
Chairtable Hospital, Bholath Road, VPO Begowal, District
Kapurthala.
2. Sant Prem Singh N.R.I. Chairtable Hospital, Bholath Road, VPO
Begowal, District Kapurthala through Surjit Singh its Incharge.
Appellants/OP Nos. 1 & 2
Versus
1. Ritu Rani wife of Karamjit Singh son of Bhajan Singh, resident of
Bhogpur Road, Bholath, District Kapurthala.
Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Dr. Anil Virdi, New Ruby Hospital, Link Road, Jalandhar.
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its
Branch Manager.
Respondents No. 2 & 3/OP Nos. 3 & 4
First Appeal against the order dated 6-1-2012
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : None.
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Harsh Bunger, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte.
For respondent No.3 : Sh. P.S. Bedi, Advocate
FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 2
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 326 of 2012
Date of institution: 15.3.2012
Ritu Rani wife of Karamjit Singh son of Bhajan Singh, resident of Bhogpur
Road, Bholath, District Kapurthala.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Sant Prem Singh N.R.I. Chairtable Hospital, Bholath Road, VPO
Begowal, District Kapurthala through Hospital Incharge.
2. Dr. Maninderjit Kaur C/o Sant Prem Singh N.R.I. Charitable Hospital,
Bholath Road, VPO Begowal, District Kapurthala.
3. Dr. Anil Virdi, New Ruby Hospital, Link Road, Jalandhar.
4. National Insurance Co. Ltd., BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its
Branch Manager.
Respondents No. 1 to 4/OP Nos. 1 to 4
First Appeal against the order dated 6-1-2012
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Harsh Bunger, Advocate
For respondent Nos.1&2 : None.
For respondent No.3 : Ex.-parte.
For respondent No.4 : Sh. P.S. Bedi, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 3 This order will dispose of both the above mentioned two appeals arising out of the impugned order dated 6.1.2012 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 140 dated 5.10.2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala(in short the "District Forum") vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with a direction to OP Nos. 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the complainant on account of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice and also pay Rs. 2000/- as cost of litigation. The payment will be made within one month otherwise the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on that amount from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 5.10.2010 till realization.
2. First Appeal No. 325 of 2012 has been filed by OP Nos. 1 & 2 to set-aside the order whereas First Appeal No. 326 of 2012 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement and to fix the liability of OP No. 3 as well.
3. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant Smt. Ritu Rani that she was in a family way and was under medical supervision and treatment of OP No. 2. OP No. 2 working with OP No. 1. She had a normal pregnancy period. She was not suffering from any type of problem. On 16.1.2010, she alongwith her husband approached OP No. 2, who performed an Ultrasound test on her. The report was normal. At that time, her pregnancy was 35 weeks and 3 days. However, Op No. 2 informed the husband of the complainant at about 2 p.m. that a caesarean operation was to be performed upon his wife and that she had already called for the operating surgeon, therefore, they should immediately deposit the operation amount and FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 4 arrange for medicines etc., which were not available with them. Then husband of the complainant requested OP No. 2 that in case Ultrasound report was normal then what was the necessity of the operation. The complainant and her husband were so pressurized by OP No. 2 that they had no option but to surrender before her wishes. OP No. 2 also assured that that the visiting Doctor OP No. 3 is a qualified Doctor and well trained Gynaecologist and that OP No. 1 had all required emergent equipment. The caesarean operation was conducted upon the complainant by OP Nos. 2 & 3 at about 4.15 p.m. and she delivered a premature baby boy. At that time OP No. 2 did not disclose anything about the condition of the baby. Whereas OP No. 3 had left the hospital after conducting the operation. At about 6 p.m., OP No. 3 informed the husband of the complainant that condition of the baby was not stable although she had given various types of medicines. Hospital was neither having any safety equipment for premature child nor any Paediatrician was present there. Moreover, OP No. 2 was just BAMS and was giving Allopathic Medicines. The newly born child was handed over to the husband of the complainant at about 6.00 p.m. for taking him to Bhutani Hospital, Jalandhar after wasting more than two hours time. The Ambulance was arranged by OP No. 1 but the Driver informed that there was no Petrol in the vehicle, therefore, the vehicle was first taken to the Petrol Station and immediate and precious time was wasted and the baby had expired on its way to Bhutani Hospital. The baby was kept in the Mortuary of OP No. 1 for three days and proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. were to be conducted, which were not intimated FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 5 by OP No. 1, therefore, the baby had died due to negligence of the Ops.
4. It was further alleged that the condition of the complainant had also become serious. She had developed complication due to operation, which was not properly conducted and bleeding started from the operation wound and blood started coming with the Urine. OP No. 2 kept her for 24 hours and kept experimenting upon her. No emergency Doctor was present in the hospital. The Nurse present in the hospital, namely, Madhu Sharma also disconnected their phone. Moreover, the staff of OP No. 1 had injected expired medicines upon the complainant. Bill No. 4230 dated 17.1.2010 was issued by OP No. 1 Cromostat injection with the expiry date of January, 2009, which was injected upon the complainant on 17.1.2010. OP No. 3 was called for time and again but he never came nor he bothered to take care of patient or by any other qualified doctor. When the husband of the complainant was on the way to arrange the blood he received a call from OP No. 1 asking him to reach Kidney Hospital, Jalandhar as the complainant was shifted to that hospital. The Ops prepared a false discharge slip stating wrong facts. When the complainant was checked by the Doctors in the Kidney Hospital, who informed that the operation was negligently conducted and some arteries of the patient were cut. She was kept in ICU for 3 days and was discharged on 23.10.2010 but urine pipe was not removed. CT Scan was conducted on 9.2.2010 after that the Doctor advised for surgery for the rectification of the damages caused to her arteries at the time of caesarean operation and accordingly, surgery was FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 6 conducted on 11.2.2010. The complainant had to spend more than Rs. 1 lac on her treatment due to the negligence on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complaint was filed to direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs for the death of the child, Rs. 1 lac spent on the treatment of the complainant, Rs. 2 lacs for loss of future prospects, Rs. 3 lacs on account of mental tension, pain and agony and also pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. The complaint was contested by the Ops. Op Nos. 1 & 2 in their written reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint contains complex questions of facts and law, therefore, it be relegated to the Civil Court; the complainant had already moved a complaint, which was inquired by District Family Welfare Officer, Office of Civil Surgeon, Kapurthala and in that complaint the complainant failed to prove any negligence on the part of the OPs, therefore, the present complaint was a frivolous complaint and that the complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant delivered her first baby by way of caesarean operation and she developed a severe pain, which led to an emergency surgery, which was taken after fully apprising the complainant and her husband. When the complainant was brought to hospital, she was having mild labour pain and her heart beat of foetus was not normal in the womb. Surgery was conducted by OP No. 3, who is an expert surgeon. Complainant showed their willingness to shift to some other hospital to which Op No. 1 did not object. The LSCS was conducted to save the life of the child. There was no question of any pressure exercised by these OPs FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 7 upon the complainant and her husband. OP No. 2 was competent to handle the situation as she had been working in the Gynae Department for the last three years. When the condition of the baby deteriorated, all possible medicines were given but OP No. 2 could not control it, therefore, the baby was referred to Bhutani Hospital at Jalandhar. She never proclaimed herself to be a Gynaecologist. It was denied that the Ambulance arranged by OP No. 1 was not having any Petrol. All efforts were made by the Ops to save the child. In case of death of the child, the Ops cannot be blamed for it. So far as the complainant is concerned, she suffered no complication in the operation. Ms. Madhu Sharma was not a Doctor but she was Assistant Staff. It was denied that any injection after expiry date was given to the complainant or that the Ops had undertaken any unfair trade practice against the patients. Lateron the complainant was also referred to Kidney Hospital, therefore, there was no case of any medical negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. The complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
6. OP No. 3 in its written statement took the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable in the eyes of law; complaint was devoid of merit as it is not maintainable against Charitable Hospital; the complainant never hired any services from OP No. 3, therefore, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No. 3. On merits, it was submitted that OP No. 3 is well qualified Doctor and is Master of Surgery working with Ruby Hospital, Jalandhar but he visited as per the call from any hospital depending upon the emergency from any other hospital. He had FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 8 conducted the operation of the complainant alongwith Op No. 2 and operation was quite successful and baby boy was delivered, which was also normal. It was denied that any other Doctor did not attend the complainant or his relatives. Operation was conducted with full concentration but at the same time the Doctors are not God and death occurs in their families also, therefore, they could not save the death of the child. An inquiry was conducted by the Civil Surgeon, Kapurthala on the complaint filed by the complainant and no case of medical negligence was found by the Civil Surgeon. It is well settled law that the Doctor operating the patient had to take some risk while conducting the operation at that moment the Doctor is only to make all efforts to save the patient to the best of its ability. After successful operation, he joined his parent duty at New Ruby Hospital on the same day and after that he was never consulted by the complainant or the hospital. It was denied that any injection, expired medicine was given. On 17.1.2010, he was consulted only on a telephone and proper advice was given on that point of time but he was never asked for visiting hospital. Therefore, this Op had rendered the effective services and was not negligent in any manner. Moreover, this OP was not responsible for post operative care of the patient. Accordingly, it was requested that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
7. OP No. 4 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that the complainant was estopped by her act and conduct to file the complaint; complaint was bad for misjoinder of parties; there was no cause of action against OP No. 3, therefore, the FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 9 complaint was dismissed against OP Nos. 3 & 4. Moreover, OP No. 3 had obtained the Mediclaim Indemnity Policy for the period 10.11.2009 to 9.11.2010. However, he was not a visiting Surgeon to OP No. 1 and if at all he performed any operation at OP No. 1 then the said Doctor had exceeded his limit and OP No. 4 was not liable to indemnify OP No. 3 and that the complaint was vague and was liable to be dismissed. On merits, the preliminary objections taken were reiterated. It was submitted that there was no medical negligence on the part of OP No. 3 while rendering the services to the complainant and new born child. The complaint was without merit and it being dismissed.
8. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
9. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. CA, affidavit of Karamjit Singh Ex. CB, affidavit of Riya Ex. CC, CT Scan report Exs. C-1&2, check up record dt. 16.1.2010 Ex. C-3, cash memo and expiry date of medicine Ex. C-4, Obstetric Ultrasound Exs. C-5 & 6, cross match compatible form Ex. C-7, replacement charges Ex. C-8, petrol bill Ex. C-9, mortuary income A/c Ex. C-10, medical record & bills Exs. C-11 to C-102, interrogation Ex. C-103, order Ex. C-104. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurvinder Kaur Ex. R-1, affidavit of Manjit Kaur Ex. R-2, affidavit of Dr. Maninderjit Kaur Ex. RW-3, complaint Ex. RW-4, affidavit of Dr. Anil Kumar Virdi Ex. R-5, affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Chawla, Ex. OPR-6, insurance cover Ex. OPR-7.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 10
10. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written replies filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was allowed as referred above. FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012
11. This appeal has been filed by OP Nos. 1 & 2 to set-aside the order passed by the learned District Forum against them. During the pendency of the appeal, Surjit Singh representative of the appellant made a statement before this Commission that the matter was compromised between the parties and placed on the record the compromise Ex. C-1 dated 24.1.2014 and submitted that the appeal be decided accordingly. However, the complainant did not came forward to confirm this compromise after giving various adjournments, therefore, till the compromise is confirmed by the complainant simple compromise document cannot be accepted, therefore, we have heard the appeal on merits.
12. It has been contended by the counsel for the appellants that there was no negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of these OPs. The evidence of Staff Nurse Riya cannot be relied upon as she did not come forward to reply the interrogatories. In case we take the help of advance technique, it is also attended by risks. LSCS was required due to the condition of the child. In case lateron any problem had arisen to the child for which OPs cannot be held liable. There was no evidence on the record whether any artery was cut of the complainant during the operation. Otherwise normal bleeding is a known complication of these types of operations. FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 11
13. As is clear from the pleadings of the parties, the complainant was admitted with the OP hospital on 16.1.2010. Ultrasound was conducted and OP No. 2, informed the complainant and her husband that LSCS is required. OP No. 3 was called from Jalandhar, who alongwith OP No. 2 conducted the operation and premature baby boy was born. The operation was conducted at 4.15 p.m. and at about 6.00 p.m., the condition of the baby boy was critical and he was referred to Bhutani Hospital and on the way he died. The learned District Forum while fixing the liability of OP Nos. 1 & 2 has considered that OP No. 2 was just a BAMS but he was proclaiming herself to be a Gynaecologist. It is not oral version but it is so corroborated from the record of the hospital itself. Ex. C-11 is the prescription slip vide which LSCS was recommended in which OP No. 2 has been mentioned as a Gynaecologist. Same is with regard to Exs. C-13 & 14 and during the course of arguments, it was admitted that she is just a BAMS and not Gynaecologist, therefore, there was no Gynaecologist with OP No. 1 when the patient was admitted for LSCS. Although the services of Surgeon OP No. 3 were availed but basically the hospital, which is admitting the patient should have basic amenities as held by Indian Medical Council in its Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics Regulations, 2002(hereinafter called Regulations, 2002) and has referred to Regulation No. 7.9, 7.12., 7.18 and 7.20, which reads as under:-
"7.9 Performing or enabling unqualified person to perform an abortion or any illegal operation for which there is no medical, surgical or psychological indication.FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 12
7.12 An institution run by a physician for a particular purpose such as a maternity home, nursing home, private hospital, rehabilitation centre or any type of training institution etc. may be advertised in the lay press, but such advertisements should not contain anything more than the name of the institution, type of patients admitted, type of training and other facilities offered and the fees.
7.18 In the case of running of a nursing home by a physician and employing assistants to help him / her, the ultimate responsibility rests on the physician.
7.20 A Physician shall not claim to be specialist unless he has a special qualification in that branch."
14. According to Regulation 7.20, the physician shall not claim to be specialist unless he has a special qualification in that branch, therefore, OP No. 1 is proclaiming OP No. 2 as a Gynaecologist whereas she is not possessing the requisite qualification to be said as a Gynaecologist then it amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 1 as well as OP No. 2 to proclaim OP No. 2 as a Gynaecologist. After the operation which was conducted at 4.15 p.m., the condition of the baby boy, who was premature had become critical. Although as per the statement given by Riya the condition of the child was poor immediately after the delivery. However, in case technically it is taken that Riya did not come forward to give to the answer to the interrogatories, therefore, her statement as it is cannot be considered, a fact is there that within a period of 1½ hours OP No. 2 had managed some medicines to FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 13 improve the condition of the child. She was not successful, perhaps she was not Gynaecologist and Paediatrician, therefore, she might not have given the proper treatment or the proper amenities or required amenities were not be available, therefore, the child was referred to Bhutani Hospital, Jalandhar. An other fact is there that the Van arranged by Op No. 1 was not having a Petrol and some time was consumed to give the petrol filled from the Petrol Station and in the meantime valuable time collapsed and the child died in the way to the Bhutani Hospital, therefore, in case OP No. 2 was not a proper trained Doctor and in case the condition of the baby had become critical then without wasting the time, the baby should have been referred to some other hospital where proper facilities were available. To support this preposition, there is a judgment of Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2012(3) RCR (Civil) 924 "R.R. Singh (BOM) versus Pratibha P. Gamre". In that case, petitioner an Ayurveda Practitioner but treating his patient in Allopathic technique. In that case, the petitioner prescribed some allopathic technique. The patient died in the clinic after some time. It was held that it was a case of medical negligence and deficiency in services. A plea was also taken that efforts were made to call for Paediatrician in the hospital but there was no evidence that Paediatrician had attended the hospital. An other circumstances of unfair trade practice is that the expired medicine i.e. Cromostat injection, whose expiry date was January, 2009 was given in January, 2010 and this fact was not rebutted by these OPs. Therefore, Op Nos. 1 & 2 are deficient in their services as well as practicing unfair trade practice on the ground that OP No. 1 FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 14 got admitted a patient for delivery when they were not having the services of a Gynaecologist. OP No. 2 claims to be a Gynaecologist but in fact she was BAMS, therefore, she cannot be categorised as Gynaecologist. Then after the birth of the baby, the hospital did not have proper amenities i.e. the services of the Gynaecologist/Paediatrician. No evidence has come on the record that services of any other Paediatrician were called from some other hospital. In case Paediatrician would have been available in the hospital then the life of the baby could be saved but due to the lapse on the part of OP No. 1 for not having proper staff and amenities and he refer the baby to Bhutani Hospital at Jalandhar, the baby died on the way. An other example of unfair trade practice is that OP No. 1 had been given expired medicines to the patient, which has been noted above, therefore, we do not agree with the pleas taken by the counsel for the appellants that there was no case of medical negligence, deficiency in services or unfair trade practice. So far as the judgment referred in the appeal, the same cannot be applied as it is because the same are to be considered keeping in view the facts of the particular case. The observations made above were not there in the judgments referred above. Therefore, we do not see any merit in First Appeal No. 325 of 2012 and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
15. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs.32,000/- in compliance with the order dated 21.3.2012. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 15 respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
16. Remaining amount, if any due on their part, shall be paid by the appellants to respondent No.1 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2012
17. It has been contended by the counsel for the appellant/complainant that complaint was filed against OP Nos. 1 to 3 and it is admitted case that operation was conducted by Op No. 3 but he left the hospital immediately after the operation and did not wait to see the condition of the baby, which deteriorated immediately after the operation. Whereas the plea of OP No. 3 is that his duty was only upto conducting the operation, which was successful, therefore, no liability was fixed against OP No. 3. However, the plea of the counsel for the appellant is that the duty of the operating Doctor does not end only after conducting the operation but his duty was that the patient must not to be neglected, in case no other attendant Doctor was there then it was his duty to attend the patient. A reference has been made to Regulations of 2002, Point No. 2.1.2 and 2.4, which reads as under:-
"2.1.2 Medical practitioner having any incapacity detrimental to the patient or which can affect his performance vis-à-vis the patient is not permitted to practice his profession. 2.4 The Patient must not be neglected: A physician is free to choose whom he will serve. He should, however, FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 16 respond to any request for his assistance in an emergency. Once having undertaken a case, the physician should not neglect the patient, nor should he withdraw from the case without giving adequate notice to the patient and his family. Provisionally or fully registered medical practitioner shall not wilfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his patient or patients from necessary medical care."
18. According to these regulations, the medical practitioner will not act detrimental to the patient or any act, which can affect his performance vis-à-vis the patient and once having undertaken a case, the physician should not neglect the patient nor should withdraw from the case before giving adequate notice to the family and he will not commit an act of negligence that may deprive the patient from necessary medical care. Therefore, in case OP No. 3 was aware that there is no Paediatrician/Gynaecologist was available in the hospital as OP No. 2 is just BAMS and cannot be said as Gynaecologist, therefore, he should not have left the fate of the child in the hands of OP No. 2 when specifically it was a case of LSCS and baby was premature, to attend the baby child, who condition was not stable, therefore, Op No. 3 cannot claim that his duty was only upto the operation. He was required to check the condition of the baby as well as the mother till some other arrangement was not there and in this case the condition of the baby became critical immediately after the delivery because at 6.00 p.m. the baby was handed over to the parents for taking it to Bhutani Hospital at Jalandhar and before that OP No. 2 had made efforts to made the baby stable by way of giving FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 17 some medicines. Since OP No. 3 was ex-parte, therefore, there was none to rebut these pleas. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum was not correct to exonerate OP No. 3 and to fix the responsibility of OP Nos. 1 & 2 only.
19. With regard to the condition of the complainant, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that Op No. 3 was negligent in performing the operation because during the operation arteries were cut, which led to bleeding and ultimately, she referred to Kidney Hospital, Jalandhar and it was controlled with an other surgery. However, the counsel for the appellant was unable to refer any document of OP Hospital or of the Kidney Hospital, which may indicate cut in the arteries. However, the record of the Kidney Hospital proves lesion of uterus as diagnosed by Shree Diagnostics Ex. C-33 & Ex. C-37. However, the complainant was not attended by this Doctor after 16.1.2010. On 17.1.2010, calls were given to OP No. 3 but he advised the OP No. 2 on telephone and did not personally attend to the patient. As referred above, once the physician having undertaken a case, he should not neglect the patient without adequate notice to the patient or his family. Since OP No. 3 had undertaken the LSCS of the complainant and in case any complication had arisen, it was his duty to attend the patient but he failed to attend the patient. In case he would have attended the patient then with her treatment may be possible in the hospital and she may not have shifted to Kidney Hospital. Again here there is a deficiency in services on the part of Op No. 3 for not attending the complainant after the operation when he was called upon by Op No. FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 18 2 to attend the patient. Moreover, it was in his knowledge that OP No. 2 was not a Gynaecologist and she may not be able to give proper treatment to the patient.
20. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the learned District Forum has allowed just Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. A new born baby had lost due to negligence on the part of the Ops. Although human life cannot be compensated but compensation must be reasonable. Complainant had to spent a sufficient amount in Kidney Hospital, Jalandhar on account of non-attendance of the complainant by Op No. 3. Therefore, we are of the opinion that instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/- will be an adequate compensation and it will be apportioned by OP Nos. 1 to 3 in equal share.
21. OP No. 3 was insured with Mediclaim Indemnity Policy with OP No. 4. OP No. 4 in its written reply has taken the plea that the said Doctor had exceeded the limit and OP No. 4 is not liable to indemnify OP No. 3. The policy taken by Op No. 3 is on the record as Ex. OPR-7. It has been given to C/o New Ruby Hospital, Cool Road, Distt. Jalandhar, Territorial Limit : Anywhere in India, following the conditions. According to this policy, number of exclusions have been mentioned. Basically it is a complaint with regard to medical negligence or unfair trade practice against OP Nos. 1 to 3 and primarily we have to decide that complaint, therefore, OP No. 3 is left to avail his remedy with OP No. 4 to indemnify this loss in an independent proceedings.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2012 19
22. In view of the above, First Appeal No. 326 of 2012 filed by the appellant/complainant is partly accepted. The amount of compensation has been increased from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- and liability will be that of OP Nos. 1 to 3 as indicated above.
23. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 29.6.2015 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
24. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
25. A copy of the order be sent to the Medical Council of India, Punjab Wing to take appropriate action against OP No. 1 and 2 for indulging in unfair trade practice as observed in the order.
26. Copy of this order be placed on F.A. No. 326 of 2012.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member July 1, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member