State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harinder Singh vs Dr. Gurdesh Mehta And Another on 22 February, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1106 of 2013
Date of institution : 14.10.2013
Date of decision : 22.02.2017
Harinder Singh son of Balkar Singh, resident of Village Daleke,
Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Dr. Gurdesh Mehta, owner/Incharge of Atul Clinic, City
Centre, Guard Bazar, Tarn Taran.
2. Dr. Vishal Verma, District T.B. Officer, Civil Hospital, Tarn
Taran.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
10.09.2013 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. J.S. Klar, Judicial Member
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Shri B.S. Jatana, Advocate
For respondent No.1: Shri R.S. Sidhu, Advocate
For respondent No.2: Shri Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the
appellant/complainant (hereinafter to be referred as, "the
complainant") against the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by him, First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 2 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), against the opposite parties was dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention at the outset that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the mother of the complainant Smt. Jasbir Kaur (since deceased) was feeling uneasiness and uncomfortable. Accordingly, she was brought to opposite party No.1 on 09.12.2011 for diagnosis and check-up, who after conducting several tests from Navjot Clinical Laboratory, Tarn Taran, diagnosed that she was suffering from Tuberculosis (in short, "T.B."). Thereafter, opposite party No.1 started treatment of T.B., recommending costly medicines. She did not respond to the treatment and medicines till July, 2012. Accordingly, opposite party No.1 recommended that she be got checked from opposite party No.2, who after getting conducted various tests also diagnosed her to be suffering from T.B. and accordingly started treatment of T.B. and recommended costly medicines. She also did not respond to the treatment given by opposite party No.2. Thereafter, the complainant got her checked- up and diagnosed from Sri Guru Ramdas Hospital of Medical Science & Research, Sri Amritsar on 25.08.2012. The complainant was shocked, when the doctors of Sri Guru Ramdas Hospital of Medical Science & Research, Sri Amritsar, after medical examination and tests of his mother, diagnosed that she was not First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 3 suffering from the disease of T.B., but was suffering from the disease of cancer of fourth stage.
4. The opposite parties wrongly diagnosed the disease of T.B., which was never the disease she was suffering from and due to ill-advice and wrong medical treatment, she lost more than one year and resultantly developed further cancer. The age of the mother of the complainant at that time was merely 55 years. During that period, the health of the mother of the complainant deteriorated day by day due to consumption of wrong medicines prescribed by the opposite parties and she died on 20.10.2012. Had the cancer been detected by opposite parties No.1 and 2 at the initial stage, then there could have been possibility of her survival. She even could not survive in-spite of the treatment given by Sri Guru Ramdas Hospital. The complainant served legal notice upon the opposite parties, through registered post, and also moved application/complaints to Senior Civil and Police officials of the State to take action against the opposite parties, but all in vain. The act and conduct of the opposite parties, in wrongly diagnosing and giving wrong treatment to the mother of the complainant, amounts to gross medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused pain/stress, agony and harassment to him. Thus, the complainant has sought following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to pay ₹5,00,000/-, as compensation; and
ii) to pay ₹7,500/-, as litigation expenses.
First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 4
5. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, by filing independent written replies. Opposite party No.1, in its written reply, raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to the District Forum with clean hands. On merits, it was pleaded that Smt. Jasbir Kaur was an old patient of opposite party No.1 and used to come alone for her treatment. On every visit, her body temperature, blood sugar level, blood pressure and other laboratory tests were got done/checked and she was being treated accordingly with reasonable competence. She was responding to the treatment given by opposite party No.1. The complainant never complained regarding her treatment. On 09.12.2011, she came to opposite party No.1, with complaint of fever-100.3°F and blood pressure (BP): 130/80, for which antibiotic and antipyretic were prescribed for five days. She again visited on 14.12.2011, with complaint of muscle aches and muscle relaxant was prescribed. On 31.12.2011, she came with fever- 101.2°F, High Blood Sugar level and was prescribed antibiotics, oral hypoglycemic and antipyretics. The reports of blood test done from Navjot Clinical Laboratory were found to be normal. Thereafter, she came for routine check-up on 20.01.2012 and on examination, body temperature and B.P. were found normal, but blood sugar level was 278 mg and she was prescribed oral hypoglycemic, vitamin D3 and B-Complex. On 08.04.2012, she came with complaint of fever and blood test was done and the blood sugar level was found as 139, malaria positive, TLC 14100 First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 5 and widal-negative and she was prescribed anti-malarial medicine and was also advised to continue previous medicines. She again came on 15.05.2012 with fever and cough, along with test reports of Arsh Clinical Laboratory, which showed ESR-120 and blood sugar level-176 mg. After examining those tests reports, opposite party No.1 told the patient that he is suspecting TB of lungs and she would have to go for more tests, including x-ray test, montu and TB feron gold to confirm the presence of the disease. However, she asked opposite party No.1 to start the treatment of TB, on the ground that the tests were costly. The ATT i.e. medicine for TB was prescribed on 17.05.2012. Thereafter, she visited on 23.05.2012, 09.06.2012, 28.06.2012 and 02.07.2012 and medicines for treatment of TB were prescribed. Thereafter on 08.07.2012, she came with fever-99 and was feeling better and as such, she was asked to complete the intensive phase and was prescribed oral hypoglycemic, ATT, iron, vitamin D3 and anti- malarial on weekly basis. After 08.07.2012, patient Jasbir Kaur never came to opposite party No.1 for check-up. Later on, she also consulted opposite party No.2, District TB Officer for treatment, who confirmed the diagnosis of TB, after screening the chest and the disease was found to be basal portion of the right lung, for which opposite party No.2 also prescribed ATT (medical for TB). It was denied for want of knowledge that patient died on 20.10.2012. Opposite party No.1 adopted standard medical process and line of treatment, with due care, skill and diligence. Disease of TB was correctly diagnosed by opposite party No.1 on First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 6 the basis of history, symptoms and test reports of the patient. On examination of the patient, no sign of any malignancy (cancer) was found. Cervical, axillary nodes were not palpable and abdomen was soft and no mass was palpable. It was further pleaded that no case of medical negligence or deficiency in service is made out against opposite party No.1. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was prayed, with heavy costs.
6. Opposite party No.2, in its written reply, raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party No.2. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties. Opposite party No.2 is under the employment of Punjab State and he has discharged his duties in his official capacity, as employee of Punjab State and as such, the Punjab State is a necessary party. The complaint without expert opinion does not lie under the law and the same deserves dismissal. The complainant has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it was pleaded that patient Jasbir Kaur came to opposite party No.2 only once on 27.07.2012, with complaint of fever as well as cough, with sputum production. After examining the test/x-ray report, opposite party No.2 found her to be a case of T.B. and as per the instructions of Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi bearing No.Z-28015/2012-TB dated 07.05.2012, a TB patient can be diagnosed clinically as a case of Tuberculosis (TB), without microbiologic confirmation, and initiated on anti-TB drugs. Further as per the guidelines issued by the State TB Control Society, First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 7 Punjab (Central TB Division) Modules 1-4, Pulmonary Tuberculosis, smear-negative is TB in a patient with symptoms suggestive of TB with at least 3 sputum smear examinations negative for AFB and radiographic abnormalities consistent with active pulmonary TB as determined by the treating MO, followed by a decision to treat the patient with a full course of anti- tuberculosis therapy. As per the guideline in the Training Course for Programme Manager (Modules 1-4), Central TB Division, April 2011, two sputum samples are examined instead of three. The treatment duration of T.B. is six months, which is provided to the patient at the nearest D.O.T. (Directly Observed Treatment) centre free of costs. Accordingly, the patient was referred by opposite party No.2 to DOT Centre at Daleke on 27.07.2012. Thereafter, she never turned up for follow up. Opposite party No.2 came to know from the record of said DOT Centre that the patient took medicines from 28.07.2012 to 15.08.2012 and thereafter she refused to take the medicines therefrom. Thus, opposite party No.2, being District TB Officer, has discharged his duties diligently and honestly and advised best possible and proper treatment to the patient. It was further pleaded that opposite party no.2 is in Government job since 1999 and he did M.D. in Chest & T.B. from Government Medical College, Amritsar and from 2005 onwards, he is practicing as Chest and T.B. Specialist and now he is working as District T.B. Officer, Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran since February, 2011. Approximately 500 patients of T.B. visit opposite party No.2 for treatment in a year and opposite party No.2 is First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 8 providing best possible treatment to all the patients. Not even a single patient has made any complaint against opposite party No.2. In fact, the complaint has been filed to harass opposite party No.2 and to extract money from him illegally. No notice was ever received by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2, while denying the rest of the allegations of the complaint, prayed for dismissal thereof with costs.
7. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order. Hence, this appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
9. Learned counsel or the complainant has vehemently contended that the deceased was never suffering from the disease of Tuberculosis. In fact, she was suffering from cancer of fourth stage. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not correctly diagnose the ailment of the mother of the complainant. More than one year was wasted due to the wrong treatment given by opposite party No.1 and about one month by opposite party No.2. In case proper tests/diagnosis would have been carried out by the opposite parties, her ailment of cancer could have been detected at the appropriate stage and the chances of her survival would have been increased. The opposite parties diagnosed her to be suffering from TB, but she never responded to the treatment as well as costly medicines prescribed by them for curing T.B. She First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 9 was just 55 years of age at the time of her death and she died due to sheer medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant suffered mental agony, harassment and loss of his mother. The District Forum has not examined the entire evidence produced on the record in right earnest and wrongly dismissed the complaint. The order passed by the District Forum is wrong and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside and the complaint is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that the complainant is not their consumer, as defined in the Act. They further argued that after examining the test reports, including report of chest, sputum, the patient was found to be a suspect of T.B. Accordingly, treatment of T.B. was given, as per the standard procedure and protocol and there was no negligence on their part in treating the patient. It was further contended that that no expert evidence has been brought on the record by the complainant, to show that wrong diagnosis was done by the opposite parties or wrong treatment was given by them. The treatment of T.B. was started by opposite party No.1 after diagnosing the same. Sometimes with the medication prescribed, the symptom of other disease does not appear. It was also contended on behalf of opposite party No.2 that after diagnosing the patient to be suffering from T.B., she was referred by opposite party No.2 to DOT Centre at Daleke on 27.07.2012. The record of said DOT Centre revealed that the patient took medicines from 28.07.2012 to 15.08.2012 and thereafter she First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 10 refused to take the medicines therefrom. Prior to this, the deceased had taken treatment of T.B. w.e.f. 09.12.2011 to July, 2012. Opposite party No.2, being District TB Officer, has discharged his duties diligently and honestly and provided the best possible and proper treatment to the patient. Even in the inquiry conducted on the complaint of the complainant, opposite party No.2 was found innocent. The District Forum did not commit any error, while dismissing the complaint and the appeal filed the appellant/complainant is also liable to be dismissed.
11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely scanned the entire record.
12. First of all, we intend to decide the preliminary objection raised by opposite parties No.1 and 2 that the complainant is not their consumer and does not falls under the definition of the "consumer", as per the Act.
13. The "consumer" is defined, under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, as under:
"Consumer" means any person who, --
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 11 such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment.
14. A bare perusal of the above said definition of "consumer", shows that a consumer means any person, who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 12 payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. When such service, as referred to above, is availed, then the complainant certainly falls under the definition of "consumer". The definition of "consumer" is wide enough to include a patient, who merely promised to pay the treatment charges to the hospital.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Savita Garg Vs. The Director, National Heart Institute 2004 (10) CPSC 1031 while dealing with the issue of free of charge as well as paid treatment, held in Para No.14 as under:-
14. Therefore, as per the English decisions also the distinction of 'contract of service' and 'contract for service', in both the contingencies the courts have taken the view that the hospital is responsible for the acts of their permanent staff as well as staff whose services are temporarily requisitioned for the treatment of the patients. Therefore, the distinction which is sought to be pressed into service so ably by learned counsel cannot absolve the hospital or the institute as it is responsible for the acts of its treating doctors who are on the panel and whose services are requisitioned from time to time by the hospital looking to the nature of the diseases. The hospital or the institute is responsible and no distinction could be made between the two classes of persons i.e. the treating doctor who was on the staff of the hospital and the nursing staff and the doctors whose services were temporarily taken for treatment of the patients.
On both, the hospital as the controlling authority is responsible and it cannot take the shelter under the plea that treating physician is not impleaded as a party, the claim First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 13 petition should be dismissed. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & ors. There the question had come up before this Court with regard to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vis-a`-vis the medical profession. This Court has dealt with all aspects of medical profession from every angle and has come to the conclusion that the doctors or the institutes owe a duty to the patients and they cannot get away in case of lack of care to the patients. Their Lordships have gone to the extent that even if the doctors are rendering services free of charge to the patients in the Government hospitals, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act will apply since the expenses of running the said hospitals are met by appropriation from the Consolidated Fund which is raised from the taxes paid by the tax payers. Their Lordships have dealt with regard to the definition of "service" given in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and have observed as follows:
" The service rendered free of charge to patients by doctors/ hospitals whether non-Govt. or Govt. who render free service to poor patients but charge fee for services rendered to other patients would, even though it is free, not be excluded from definition of service in Section 2(1)(o). The Act seeks to protect the interests of consumers as a class. To hold otherwise would mean that the protection of the Act would be available to only those who can afford to pay and such protection would be denied to those who cannot so afford, though they are the people who need the protection more. It is difficult to conceive that the legislature intended to achieve such a result. Another consequence of adopting a construction, which would restrict the protection of the Act to persons who can afford to pay for the services availed by them and deny such protection to those who are not in a First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 14 position to pay for such services, would be that the standard and quality of services rendered at an establishment would cease to be uniform. It would be of a higher standard and of better quality for persons who are in a position to pay for such service while the standard and quality of such service would be inferior for person who cannot afford to pay for such service and who avail the service without payment. Such a consequence would defeat the object of the Act. All persons who avail the services by doctors and hospitals who give free service to poor patients but charge fee for others, are required to be treated on the same footing irrespective of the fact that some of them pay for the service and others avail the same free of charge. Most of the doctors and hospitals work on commercial lines and the expenses incurred for providing services free of charge to patients who are not in a position to bear the charges are met out of the income earned by such doctors and hospitals from services rendered to paying patients. The Government hospitals may not be commercial in that sense but on the overall consideration of the objectives and the scheme of the Act it would not be possible to treat the Government hospitals differently. In such a situation the persons belonging to "Poor class" who are provided services free of charge are the beneficiaries of the service which is hired or availed of by the "paying class". Service rendered by the doctors and hospitals who render free service to poor patients and charge fees for others irrespective of the fact that part of the service is rendered free of charge, would nevertheless fall within the ambit of the expression "service" as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act."First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 15
16. Identical issue arose in the case of Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital & Ors. II (2005) CPJ 35 (NC); wherein, after discussing the entire law on the subject, the Hon'ble National Commission held that even if no payment is made, still the complainant falls under the definition of the "consumer".
17. In view of the above law, even the persons availing treatment from Government Hospitals free of charge are to be held to be beneficiaries-consumers. As such, in the present case, the complainant, who hired the service of opposite parties No.1 & 2 for getting the treatment of T.B., would certainly fall within the definition of the "consumer", as defined in the Act, as the treatment undertaken by opposite parties squarely falls within the definition of "service" as per the definition given in Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act.
18. Coming to the merits of the case, now it is to be ascertained, whether the complainant has been able to prove the medical negligence and deficiency on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2, while diagnosing and treating his mother for T.B.? Admittedly, no convincing expert evidence has been brought on the record by the complainant, from which it can be inferred that the deceased was not, at all, suffering from T.B. of lung and that she was suffering from carcinoma of lung only. The bald statement made by the complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A cannot lead to the conclusion that she was not properly diagnosed by the opposite parties. The complainant has not even brought on First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 16 record the affidavit of the treating doctor of Sri Guru Ramdas Hospital. It is settled principle of law that onus to prove the medical negligence heavily lies upon the complainant, but he has miserably failed to prove the same. The point of medical negligence has been thoroughly discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme and National Commission in the following judgments:
i) 1 (2010) CPJ 29 (SC) Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital;
ii) III (2010) CPJ 37 (NC) Ajay Kumar Singh v. Dr. (Lt. Col.) B.P. Singh;
iii) Halsbury's Laws of England 5th Ed. 2011 Vol. 74.
iv) III (2002) CPJ 99 (NC) Beena Garg v. Kailash Nursing Home & Ors.
v) 1957 (2) All E.R. 118 Bolam v. Friern Hospital Committee;
The sum and substance of the above said judgments is that the medical practitioner is required to meet the standard of ordinary skilled practitioner, while exercising and professing to have the special skill in question. He must exercise reasonable degree of care and is expected to follow the standard line of treatment for particular disease.
19. In the present case, it is admitted by the complainant that various tests were carried out from various clinical laboratories as per the advice of opposite parties No.1 and 2. After considering those reports, they had come to the conclusion that the deceased was suffering from lung vessel T.B. and the line of treatment for T.B. is also not disputed. The complainant himself placed on record the Identity Card Ex.C-4 of patient Jasbir Kaur issued by First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 17 Distt. T.B. Control Society, which proves that she was a patient of T.B. (Pulmonary) and was getting treatment under the above said programme. Opposite party No.2-Doctor is employed in a Govt. hospital, which exclusively deals with the T.B. patients and a Revised National T.B. Control Programme has been initiated by the Director General of Health Sciences, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. As per this programme, the treatment of T.B. can be done in a specialized manner under special supervision. Even clinically the T.B. can be diagnosed. There is no tangible evidence on the record to conclude that opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not use reasonable degree of skill while treating the mother of the complainant.
20. Opposite party No.2 specifically deposed in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A that before starting the treatment of the patient, her sputum test and x-ray were conducted and after examining the tests reports, she was found to be suffering from T.B and as per Treatment Card Ex.R-6, the treatment given to the patient for curing the disease of T.B. under the Revised National T.B. Control Programme. The complainant even made a complaint against opposite party No.2 to the higher authorities regarding the alleged wrong treatment given to the patient and the inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer, vide Inquiry Report Ex.R-2, found opposite party No.2-Dr. Vishal Sharma innocent and it was specifically held that proper treatment was given by opposite party No2 -Dr. Vishal Verma to the mother of the complainant, as per the guidelines issued by State T.B. Control Society, Punjab and First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 18 there was no negligence on his part while treatment the patient. Similarly, opposite party No.1-Dr. Gurdesh Mehta in his affidavit Ex.RW-4/A deposed that he is an experienced, qualified and renounced doctor and he adopted standard medical process and line of treatment, required in this case. There is another affidavit of one Jagdeep Singh Bhalla, Ex.RW-2/A, who deposed that he is working as Senior Treatment Supervisor at DTC, Tarn Taran, UT Tarn Taran. He further deposed that patient Jasbir Kaur was suffering from Tuberculosis and she was getting treatment from this centre from 28th July, 2012 to 15th August, 2012 and thereafter, the patient refused to take treatment for Tuberculosis. To the similar effect, is the affidavit of Archna Harchand, ANM, PHC Daleke, CHC Chabal, District Tarn Taran.
21. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the deceased was never suffering from T.B. and she was wrongly diagnosed of this disease. In fact, she was suffering from cancer. This contention cannot be accepted, in view of the cogent and convincing evidence available on the record. Admittedly, the disease of T.B. was diagnosed by the opposite parties, after examining the laboratory reports of sputum and chest X-rays. The T.B. can also be diagnosed clinically, after hearing the symptoms from the patient. The same is clear from the Notification dated 07.05.2012 (Ex.R-2) issued by Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the instructions (Ex.R-3) issued by the State T.B. Control Society, Punjab. It is averred by the complainant in the complaint that various tests were carried First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 19 out by the opposite parties-Doctors. Opposite party No.1 started treatment of T.B. w.e.f. 09.12.2011 to July, 2012 and opposite party No.2 treated the deceased for T.B. in a specialized T.B. Hospital from 28.07.2012 to 15.08.2012, meaning thereby that she had taken treatment for this disease from the opposite parties for about nine months. The treatment duration of the T.B. is six months. In view of this, it may have been cured. For this reason, the symptom of T.B. may not have appeared at the time the tests were carried out by the Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology of Sri Guru Ramdas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar.
22. The Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology of Sri Guru Ramdas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, detected adenocarcinoma, a type of cancer, which starts in the glands that lines inside of the organs. The medical literature reveals that many times, the cancer remains dormant in the body for decades, but strikes all of a sudden in the life. After remaining dormant, it strikes suddenly and becomes rapidly growing and aggressive. There is no evidence on the record of the doctor of Sri Guru Ramdas Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar that the deceased never suffered from T.B. disease. The possibility of cancer cannot be ruled out in a patient of T.B., which may be at the initial stage or at the last stage, but it cannot be held that opposite parties No.1 & 2 were negligent in treating the patient, who was suffering from T.B. First Appeal No.1106 of 2013 20
23. In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that opposite parties No.1 & 2-Doctors were not, at all negligent in diagnosing and treating the patient for curing the disease of T.B. Specialized and standard treatment was given to the patient and there was no nexus between the disease of T.B. and cancer. We hold that there was no medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The District Forum, while relying upon the judgments mentioned in the impugned order, passed a well reasoned order and the same does not deserve any interference by this Commission.
24. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (J.S. KLAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER February 22, 2017.
(Gurmeet S)