State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Ravi Kant Sharma. vs 2.Parveen Sharma Both Sons Of Dr. Babu ... on 3 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.273 & 310 of 2010 Date of Institution: 3.3.2010 & 5.3.2010 Date of Decision: 03.02.2012 Appeal No.273 of 2010 1. Ravi Kant Sharma 2. Parveen Sharma both sons of Dr. Babu Ram (i) C/o Arogya Niketan (ii) Dr. Babu Ram memorial Hospital, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra Appellants (Ops No.1 & 2) Versus 1. Smt. Rekha wife of Shri Jasbir Singh, r/o Village Chhapri Post Office Deeg, District Kurukshetra. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Dr. N.K. Gaur, Gaur Maternity and Surgical Hospital, Ladwa Road, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. 3. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. G.T. Road, Shahbad, through its Manager. Performa Respondents (Ops No.3 and 4) For the Parties: Shri Baldev Singh Advocate for appellants. Shri Sanjay Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Madan Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri Vinod Mahendru, Advocate for respondent No.3. Appeal No.310 of 2010 Smt. Rekha wife of Shri Jasbir Singh, r/o Village Chhapri Post Office Deeg, District Kurukshetra. Appellants (Complainant) Versus 1. Ravi Kant Sharma 2. Parveen Sharma both sons of Dr. Babu Ram (i) C/o Arogya Niketan (ii) Dr. Babu Ram memorial Hospital, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. 3. Dr. N.K. Gaur, Gaur Maternity and Surgical Hospital, Ladwa Road, Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. 4. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. G.T. Road, Shahbad, through its Manager. Respondents (Ops) For the Parties: Shri Sanjay Verma, Advocate for appellant. Shri Baldev Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Madan Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri Vinod Mahendru, Advocate for respondent No.4. BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
These two appeals bearing No.273 and 310 of 2010 have arisen out of the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra whereby complaint bearing No.339 of 2006 filed by complainant Rekha alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service against the opposite parties, was accepted by granting following relief:-
we accept this complaint and direct the Ops 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) as compensation to the complainant. we further direct the Civil Surgeon Kurukshetra to flash out such illegal practitioners in the District and to take appropriate action against all such unapproved person in the profession. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of announcement of order failing which penal action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, will be taken.
The case of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that on 25.6.2006 she had visited the opposite parties No.1 and 2 at their hospital namely Arogya Niketan Dr. Babu Ram Memorial Hospital, Shahbad, alongwith her husband, for taking treatment with respect to the pain in her body. Opposite Party No.1 gave injection to the complainant on left gluteel while the opposite party No.2 prescribed other medicines to the complainant. According to the complainant, due to the injection and treatmen given by the opposite parties No.1 and 2, there appeared swelling on the left gluteel of the complainant and consequently on 26.6.2006 the complainant alongwith her husband visited the opposite parties No.1 and 2 who applied plaster on the left gluteel of the complainant. But the left gluteel region underneath the plaster took the shape of big and deep wound. Because in blackening condition, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 again applied plaster. Ultimately, the wound on the left gluteel region of the complainant converted into a big and deep wound and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 showed their inability to cure the same and refused to give any further treatment to the complainant on 22.7.2006. According to the complainant, the opposite parties charged Rs.4,000/-
from her. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 on 22.7.2006 and remained admitted in his hospital till 27.7.2006 for which the opposite party charged Rs.9500/- from complainant. On 23.7.2006 when complainant suffered severe pain in the left gluteel region,, the opposite party No.3 advised for operation of complainant. According to the complainant, her husband had provided all the medicines etc demanded by the opposite party No.3 for operation, but the opposite party falsely told that the operation had been conducted whereas no operation was conducted. On 27.7.2005 when the condition of complainant deteriorated, she was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh by the opposite party No.3.
On 27.7.2006, the complainant was taken to Mirei Piri Institution of Medical Science and Research Shahbad, Markanda and got treatment from the said hospital as OPD patient and since then the complainant remained under the treatment of Dr. Vipin Bhatia, Mirei Piri Institution of Medical Science and Research Shahbad, Markanda. According to the complainant, it was told by Dr. Vipin Bhatia that no operation was conducted by the opposite party No.3. With the above said averments, the complainant alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service against the opposite parties and filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a compensation of rupees four lacs.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their written statement took the plea that they are not doctors by profession and no treatment was even given by them to the complainant. they further stated that they had no concern with Arogya Niketan Dr. Babu Ram Memorial Hospital, Shahbad (Markanda). However, they admitted that they are sons of Dr. Babu Ram but Arogya Niketan Hospital/clinic is being run by their elder brother Dr. Chhavi Parkash Sharma who is a qualified doctor.
Opposite Party No.3 in his written statement stated that he is a Senior qualified and experienced surgeon of more than 30 years standing. He is running a well equipped 20-bedded surgical hospital at Shahbad Markanda since 1985 and stated the complaint of the complainant to be false and frivolous and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant was given proper treatment. However, the complainant had shown her inability to continue with the treatment given by the said private hospital because of poverty and for that reason complainant was discharged by issuing Discharge Certificate whereby she was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh after explaining the details. A written request in this regard was obtained from the complainant. Thus, the opposite party denied any kind of medical negligence and deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
While disposing of the complaint, the District Consumer Forum held the opposite parties No.1 and 2 guilty of being Jhola Chaap doctors and granted compensation to the complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have filed appeal No.273/2010 for setting aside the impugned order and the complainant has filed appeal No.310/2010 for enhancement of compensation from rupees one lac to rupees four lacs.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
At the threshold of arguments it has been argued by the learned counsel for appellants-opposite parties No.1 and 2 that the District Forum erred in allowing the complaint against the opposite parties No.1 and 2 without there being any evidence on the record that the complainant was treated by them.
The perusal of the record reflect that the District Forum while allowing the complaint merely relied upon the affidavit of the complainant. There is nothing on the record to prove that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are the doctors by profession and that the complainant was treated by them. No prescription slip issued by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has been produced by the complainant. In our view the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have been held guilty only on assumption and presumption. District Consumer Forum has failed to take into account the aforementioned facts of the case and erred in allowing the complaint. hence, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be allowed to sustain.
In view of our aforesaid discussions, appeal No.273/2010 filed by opposite parties No.1 and 2 is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Consequently, appeal No.310/2010 filed by complainant for enhancement of compensation is dismissed.
It is further ordered that in appeal No.273/2010, the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal and Rs.75,000/- deposited on 16.04.2010 in compliance of the order dated 19th March, 2010, be refunded to the appellants-opposite parties No.1 and 2 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
The original order be attached with appeal No.273/2010 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.310/2010.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 03.02.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member