State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parmeel Kumar vs Dr. Nirmal Singh And Another on 10 May, 2022
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1526 of 2017 Date of Institution: 12.12.2017 Date of Decision: 10.05.2022 Parmeel Kumar S/o Late Sh.Jasmer Singh R/o Village Topra Khurd Tehsil and District Yamuna Nagar. .....Appellant Versus Dr. Nirmal Singh, Nirmal Hospital, Radaur Road, Opposite Main Bazar, Camp Yamuna Nagar. United India Insurance Company Ltd.54, Nan Path Connaught Palace, New Delhi its Divisional Manager vide policy No.040100/46/12/35/00005651 w.e.f. 12.11.2012 to 11.11.2013. .....Respondents CORAM: Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member
Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member Present:- Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Amit, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr.B.R.Madan, Advocate for the respondent No.2 ORDER S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The present appeal No.1526 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 29.09.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (In short "District Commission") in Consumer Complaint No.230 of 2013, which was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant's father came to the hospital of the opposite party No.1 on 31.12.2012 at around 12.20 p.m. with the complained of chest pain. On examination, the father of the complainant was suffering from coronary artery disease/CAN and acute MI/Myocardial infarction. At the time of ECG conducted by OP No.1, it was confirmed that father of the complainant was suffering from CAN and acute MI i.e. Heart Attack and he was in critical condition. The opposite party No.1 did not give any proper treatment. Even bed facility was not given in ICU/Ward/Private Room to him. He requested the OP to treat his father immediately, but father of the complainant Sh.Jasmer Singh died at 2.10 p.m. in the toilet of the hospital of OP NO.1. Thus there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.
3. Opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 06.12.2013 by the learned District Commission.
4. OP No.1 while filing the written statement took some preliminary objections about complaint is false and frivolous, accruing cause of action, maintainability of complaint, mis-joinder and non joinder of proper parties have also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint as prayed for.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 (OP No.1) was an expert and qualified physician and treated thousands of patients in this field. The answering OP qualified his MD Physician in 2003 from Lugansk State Medical University Lugansk Ukraine. Answering OP had served for two years in Govt. Multi Speciality Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh as physician in Medicine Department. Answering OP was established his private hospital since June 2008, having well equipped emergency, ICU with multi para monitor and centrally oxygen, operation theater, pharmacy and clinical laboratory and in the concerned fraternity of medical science and he had not only been treating these types of cases but had also been managing and treating more serious cases. It is admitted that father of the complainant died in his hospital with history of Cabhrahat since two days with pain chest with difficulty in breathing. On systemic examination, heart sounds were normal. CNS (Central Nerves System) was conscious oriented, general condition was stable. Nothing abnormal was detected. Chest Bilateral clear and there was no abnormal sound heard. Patient was investigated and his HB was 11 gms% his total leucocyte count (TLC) was 9000 cmm with differential leucocyte count (DLC) of ploymorphs 72% lymphocytes 24%, Monocytes 2%, Eosinophils 2%. The patient was subjected to ECG (at 12.38 pm) which showed CAD (Carnory Artery Disease) Acute anterior Wall Myocardial infraction since two days old as per ECG. After seeing the ECG, the treating doctor advised to get admitted immediately in ICU. The first line of treatment of the patient prescribed in the form of various injections, tablet forms which were required to the patient immediately. The advice of the OP NO.1 for immediate admission of patient was declined by the patient as well as complainant and did not consent for treatment. He remained busy in consulting his relatives and friends and wasted about one and half hours and during this period, the patient remained walking outside the hospital. The patient felt some urinal pressure and came in the hospital premises to ease out in toilets constructed in front of the reception. The above said facts was not in the knowledge of the OP No.1 doctor nor in the staff and nor the complainant i.e. his son Parmeel when his son came back in the hospital, he enquired from the staff about his father. After searching a while, the patient was found in the toilet, who was brought outside and OP doctor after examining him, declared him dead. Thus there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP.
5. After hearing the counsel for the complainant, the learned District Commission, Panchkula has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 29.09.2017.
6. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.
7. This argument have been advanced by Sh.Ajay Nara, learned counsel for the complainant-appellant as well as Sh.Amit, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. B.R.Madan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant argued that father of the complainant died due to negligence and carelessness on the part of the OPs-respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the complainant did not give the consent for treatment of his father. The complainant remained busy in consulting his relatives. Prior to admission in the hospital, the patient might have been under the control of his close relatives. The patient felt some urinal pressure and came in the hospital premises to ease out in toilets constructed in front of the reception. The above said facts was not in the knowledge of the OP No.1 doctor nor in the staff and nor the complainant i.e. his son Parmeel when his son came back in the hospital, he enquired from the staff about his father. After searching a while, the patient was found in the toilet, who was brought outside and OP doctor after examining him, declared him dead. Thus there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.
10. It is not disputed that father of the complainant went to the OP No.1 hospital for treatment. It is also not disputed that prior to admission in the hospital, some tests were conducted. It is also not disputed that the treating doctor advised the patient to admit in the hospital. The patient was expired in the toilet of the hospital when the complainant purchased the medicine from the open market. Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-3 reveals that the patient was not admitted, however, the treating doctor advised to take some medicines and tests.
11. In view of the above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint.
12. Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
10th May, 2022 Suresh Chander Kaushik S. P. Sood Member Judicial Member S.K (Pvt. Secy.)