State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Arshan vs Dr.Neeraj Dhiman on 4 May, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1199 of 2009
Date of institution: 24.08.2009
Date of decision : 04.05.2010
Arshan aged about 28 years wife of Resham Khan resident of village Rangian,
Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Dr.Neeraj Dhiman, Dhiman Clinic and Laboratory, Near Ram Lila Gate,
Morinda, District Ropar.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 54, Janpath Cannought Palace, New Delhi
110001 through its Divisional Manager.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 08.07.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Pankaj Sharma, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT The appellant had visited the clinic of respondent No.1 (in short "the respondent") on 22.10.2008 for medical treatment. She was suffering from mild fever, vomiting and giddiness. Paramedical staff of the respondents had administered some injections alongwith I.V. fluid to the appellant. She was also given some allopathic tablets. She was administered about 10 bottles of I.V. fluid in 36 hours.
2. It was further pleaded that as a result, the condition of the appellant started deteriorating. The husband of the appellant requested the paramedical staff of the respondent to refer the appellant to some other hospital but they refused to do so. The condition of the appellant proceeded from bad to worse. On the First Appeal No.1199 of 2009 2 persistent request of the husband of the appellant, the respondent referred the appellant to the PGI, Chandigarh after charging a sum of Rs.2200/- from the appellant. No receipt was given to her. However, the prescription slip and the report were given by the respondent to the appellant.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellant was taken to the PGI, Chandigarh by her husband in semi-conscious condition. She had fever and swelling on her face and on her feet. The doctors of the PGI diagnosed that 3 litres of I.V. fluid was administered in the body of the appellant. The appellant recovered in the PGI. She was discharged, thereafter. Alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondent, the appellant filed a complaint against him to the SDM, Chamkaur Sahib but no action was taken. Then the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short "the District Forum") for compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs. Interest and costs were also prayed.
4. The respondent filed the written reply. It was pleaded that the respondent had taken the Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy from respondent No.2 (hereinafter to be referred as "the respondent insurance company"). The allegations made in the complaint were denied.
5. It was, however, admitted that the appellant had come in the OPD of the respondent on 22.10.2008. She was given medical treatment for stopping the vomiting. The medicines and cough syrup was also given. The investigation was conducted which revealed CBC-Cell count 4600/cumm, polymorphs = 80%, platelets = 2 lac. Urine examination was also conducted. The appellant had gone back to her house on 22.10.2008 at 10.00 p.m.
6. It was further pleaded that she had again come to the clinic of the respondent with the complaint of persistent vomiting and giddiness. She was given medical treatment in the night. Injections were also administered to her. She was also given Antibiotics. She was also given medicines to control the fever and push First Appeal No.1199 of 2009 3 up the blood pressure but she did not respond. She was referred to the PGI on 23.11.2008 at 2.00 p.m..
7. It was denied if the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.2200/- to the respondent or if he had administered 10 units of I.V. fluid. The respondent had given the bill of Rs.520/- to the appellant. Even that amount was not paid. She was administered only 5 units of I.V. fluid to stabilise her blood pressure. It was denied if there was any medical negligence on the part of the respondent. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
8. The respondent insurance company also filed the written reply. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
9. Parties produced the affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
10. The learned District Forum considered the matter and dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 8.7.2009 with costs of Rs.500/-.
11. Hence, this appeal.
12. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 8.7.2009 be set aside.
13. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
14. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Martin F. D'souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq", 2009 CTJ 352 (Supreme Court) (CP), the medical opinion was sought from the PGI, Chandigarh. The Director, PGI had referred the matter to Dr.Sanjay Jain who was expert in the subject to give his opinion about the alleged medical negligence of the respondent. He reported as under : -
"Summary :
According to records available (especially of PGIMER, Chandigarh) Arshan, 28 years old young lady was admitted to PGI on 24.10.08. Prior to their admission she has been treated for fever, vomiting and giddiness by Dr.Dhiman with I.V. fluids, paracetamol. First Appeal No.1199 of 2009 4 Diclofenac and stemetil. She had swelling of lower limbs. She had received 3 litres of fluids by local doctor. This amount of fluid did not produce any collection of fluid in body cavity, respiratory distress or any cardiovascular compromise. The swelling of body could be due to basic disease resulting in capillary leak syndrome.
I do not find any negligence on the part of treating doctor.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Jain) Professor of Medicine Department of Internal Medicine Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh - 160012."
15. Therefore, as per the report of the Medical Expert Dr.Sanjay Jain, there is no medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, costs awarded by the learned District Forum are set aside.
17. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.250/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.8.2009. This amount of Rs.250/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft immediately.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER May 04, 2010.
Paritosh