State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Satish Kumar S/O Radha Krishan Jawa vs Manisha D/O Navarang Lal on 14 September, 2017
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 944/2016 Dr.Satish Kumar s/o Radha Krishan Jawa c/o Jawa Child Care Centre, Sector 13, Dabra Road, Hisar (Haryana) Vs. Manisha d/o Navranglal r/o village Kardaka Tehsil Srimadhopur, Police Station Thoi Distt. Sikar through Natural Guardian & father Navranglal & ors. APPEAL NO: 567/2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1st floor, SCO 155-156, 21, Commercial Urban Estate, Near Telephone Exchange, PB no. 35 Hisar (Haryana) & ors. Vs. Manisha d/o Navranglal r/o village Kardaka Tehsil Srimadhopur, Police Station Thoi Distt. Sikar through Natural Guardian & father Navranglal & ors. 2 Date of Order 14.9. 2017 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Mr.Manoj Goyal counsel for Dr. Satish Kumar Mr. Vizzy Agarwal counsel for Insurance Company Mr.Prem Prakash Bunkar counsel for complainant Manisha BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
Both these appeals have been filed against the single order hence, are decided by this common order.
The contention of the appellant is that the complaint is totally false. The appellant Dr. Satish Kumar never treated the injured at her village Kardaka. She remained with his treatment from 16.1.2013. OPD consultation charges were charged. She was treated and on 17.1.2013 she was get discharged against medical advise by the attendants. Manisha was never remained admitted in Sharmila Nursing Home as no record of hospital is submitted. The certificate given by 3 Dr.Mahesh Kumar Sharma is totally spurious. There is no evidence of the amputation of the limbs and as per permanent disability certificate dated 10.6.2013 she was suffering from illness and trauma from last four years hence, disability could not be attributed to him.
Per contra the contention of the respondent is that Manisha was treated wrongly by the appellant and the claim has rightly been allowed.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.
The first contention of the respondent before the Forum below was that when wife of the complainant was preparing tea for the appellant Dr. Satish Kumar Jawa and two other persons namely Ashok and Anil it fell down on the Manisha and she suffered burn injury on her right hand. An injection was administered to Manisha by Dr. Satish Kumar wrongly and due to the effect of injection her entire body got affected. As per advise of the doctor she was treated in his hospital at Hissar on 14.1.2013 but surprisingly no date of the incident is mentioned any where in complaint and there is no evidence to the effect 4 that which injection was administered to Manisha and how it affected her and further more there is no evidence to the effect that she was treated with the appellant since 14.1.2013.
Per contra the appellant has submitted the receipt of OPD consultation charges Anx. 8 which shows that she was admitted on 16.1.2013. The document of Child Care Centre also shows that she was admitted on 16.1.2013 and discharged on 17.1.2013 and on 17.1.2013 she was taken out of the hospital without medical advise. To support the fact that she was admitted in hospital on 16.1.2013 the concerned register has also been submitted. Hence, it can very well be concluded that Manisha was never treated by the appellant Dr. Satish prior to 16.1.2013.
The respondent has relied upon the certificate given by Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma running Sharmila Nursing Home wherein it has been stated that both legs and left hand of Manisha have developed gangrene and they are being amputated. It has also been mentioned in the certificate given by Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma that she was admitted in Sharmila Nursing Home on 18.1.2013 but to utter surprise of this Commission no admission record of the Sharmila Nursing 5 Home is submitted to support this certificate. Contrary to the certificate affidavit of Dr.Mahesh Kumar Sharma was filed which has not stated any fact as regard to amputation. Record of Sharmila Nursing Home is submitted which shows that Manisha brought to the Nursing Home on 25.3.2013 having black wound gangrene and on 7.4.2013 also it has been mentioned that she is having complaint of gangrene in both legs. In contradiction to this record Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma has furnished the certificate that her both legs and left hand was amputed but there is no documentary evidence to this effect that when her leg or left hand were amputated. It may also be noted that permanent disability certificate Anx. 9 which has also been relied by the respondent goes to show that foot toe and left four fingers were amputated whereas as per contention in the complaint Manisha has suffered severe burn injury in her right hand and as per the certificate of Dr. Mahesh Sharma she developed gangrene in her left hand. Further more the permanent disability could not be attributed to the appellant as she was having history of illness/trauma from last four years whereas as per contention of the complainant respondent himself she was treated by the appellant only from January 2013. Hence, it can be concluded that it is a totally false case. The Forum below has not considered the facts in right 6 perspective and appeal is liable to be allowed.
Before parting it is appropriate to mention that looking at the facts of the present case it is more than clear that Dr.Mahesh Sharma has submitted a false affidavit and so also the false certificate dated 18.1.2013 hence, it is expedient in the interest of justice that inquiry should be made for the offence u/s 193 IPC. Hence, a notice u/s 340 CRPC be issued to Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma s/o Bhagirath Prasad r/o V.K.I Road No. 17, Sriram Nagar, Plot No. 170/166 Jaipur.
In view of above, both appeals are allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 31.3.2016 is set aside.
(Nisha Gupta ) President nm