State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Phool Chand Resident Of Village Baswawa ... vs Dr. Mukesh Verma, Mehendra Hospital, ... on 10 January, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.607 of 2007 Date of Institution: 12.03.2007 Date of Decision: 10.01.2012 Phool Chand Resident of Village Baswawa Singh, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. Appellant (Complainant) Versus 1. Dr. Mukesh Verma, Mehendra Hospital, Jain nagar, Yamuna Nagar Road, Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar. 2. New India Assurance Co. Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager. Respondent (OPs) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Vishnu Sharma, Advocate for appellant. Shri Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.02.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby complaint bearing No.356/2005 filed by the appellant-complainant against the respondents-opposite parties alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service, has been dismissed for want of cogent and convincing evidence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Admitted facts of the present case are that the complainant was admitted in the hospital of the respondent-opposite party No.1 with the complaint of abdomen pain which was due to Hernia. After taking consent of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 conducted operation and also removed one testicle while conducting the surgery. According to the treating doctor-opposite party No.1, it was a case of emergency because the Hernia found of obstructed in nature if the patient come immediately. In other words, the complainant had visited the hospital of the opposite party No.1 when hernia was oozing out and had become obstructed. As per Medical Books Annexure R-1, it has been established on the record that in such like cases of hernia, the removal of testicle to save the intestine and to reoccur of hernia and gangrene, is necessary. The only grievance of the complainant is that he fails to enjoy the sexual intercourse. However, the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence in this regard. It is further the case of the complainant that when the pain in his abdomen did not stop, he contacted and consulted Dr. V.K. Sharma, of Civil Hospital, Jagadhri and on his advice got conducted the ultrasound report and on seeing the ultrasound report, Dr. V.K. Sharma had given opinion that the pain in the abdomen was due to removal of testicle. However, the complainant has failed to examine Dr. V.K. Sharma to prove his claim in this regard and therefore mere assumption and presumption cannot take the shape of proof. Complainant has failed to produce on the record the report of ultrasound.
Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we hardly find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in dismissing the complaint.
Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 10.01.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member