State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Udham Singh vs Dr. Harpreet Singh, on 2 August, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.526 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 04.04.2006.
Date of Decision: 02.08.2011.
Udham Singh S/o Sh. Jagtar Singh, R/o Village Virak Khara, Tehsil Malout,
District Muktsar.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Dr. Harpreet Singh, 4 Khamba Chowk, Model Town, Ludhiana.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
28.03.2005 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Aman Dhir, Advocate.
For the respondent : Ms Promila Nain, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Sh. Udham Singh, appellant/complainant (In short "the
appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondent, on the allegations that the appellant approached the respondent for the treatment of allergy from dust. The respondent checked him and prescribed certain medicines after charging Rs.500/- as fee and he was advised by the respondent to come to Ludhiana for further investigation. On 29.10.2001, the appellant visited the clinic of the respondent and he was First Appeal No.526 of 2006 2 referred to Soin Diagnostic Centre for ultrasound and x-ray. The appellant was also referred to M.B. Diagnostic Lab. for blood test.
3. The respondent used to visit Malout on the last Sunday of every month upto February, 2002 but thereafter, he stopped going to Malout. The appellant visited the respondent at Malout upto the last Sunday of February, 2002 and thereafter, at Ludhiana for treatment.
4. The respondent told the appellant that he is a patient of allergy from dust and the disease will be cured within a few months and he used to charge Rs.500/- for every visit and the appellant paid Rs.2500/- to the respondent at Malout. After February, 2002, the appellant visited the hospital of the respondent on 07.03.2002 and paid Rs.8000/- for medical services and also purchased injection of Rs.780/- on the advice of the respondent. The appellant again visited the respondent on 17.03.2002 and paid Rs.8000/- as medical expenses and purchased medicines for Rs.6000/-. Again on 23.03.2002, 31.03.2002, 11.04.2002, 21.04.2002, 28.04.2002, 26.05.2002, 01.06.2002, 09.06.2002, 30.06.2002, 06.07.2002, 18.08.2002, 15.09.2002 and 10.10.2002, he paid the medical expenses as well as purchased medicines and in all, he spent Rs.1,71,680/-. The respondent used to give medicines and injections and by continuous use of those medicines, the knee joints of both the knees of the appellant were affected and now the appellant is suffering from pain continuously and feeling difficulty in walking.
5. The disease of the appellant has not been cured by the treatment of the respondent. Rather, the allergy has become very acute and now the appellant is more allergic to the dust, smoke etc. He is suffering from respiratory, nosel/bronchael allergy. The respondent failed to diagnose his disease and continued the treatment of appellant by hit and trial method and used the medicines with high intensity and the condition of the appellant worsened day by day, but the respondent continued the treatment and charged heavy amount on every visit. The respondent was negligent in performing his duty and was deficient in rendering service. It was prayed that First Appeal No.526 of 2006 3 the respondent be directed to pay Rs.1,17,680/-, Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation, Rs.10,000/- as travelling expenses and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest @ 12% p.a.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable and is false and frivolous. The respondent is working as Associate Professor and Head of Deptt. of Pharmacology in Baba Jaswant Singh Dental College and Research Institute at Ludhiana, and commands a good reputation. The present complaint has been filed in order to blackmail the respondent with ulterior motive to extract money and to tarnish the image. The appellant has no cause of action and the complaint involves complicated issues and the District Forum is not the appropriate Forum. The appellant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction and the complaint is hopelessly time barred.
7. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent offers simple cabin consultation and is not a practicing doctor. The respondent never visited Malout city. The respondent never checked the appellant at Malout nor prescribed medicines. The appellant was never examined or diagnosed, as alleged by the appellant. The appellant is relying upon the report which has not been referred to by any doctor. The appellant has forged some documents and he was never referred by the respondent for undergoing any tests, scan or x-ray. No money was charged. The appellant has not placed on file any receipts and the story is improbable and all lies are told. The respondent has never given any intravenious glucose bottle, metrozil etc. as the appellant was never examined or diagnosed by the respondent and these medicines cannot cause any problem in knee joints or pain or difficulty in walking. No amount was charged. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
First Appeal No.526 of 2006 4
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that there is no prescription slip produced by the appellant which was written by the respondent to get the tests conducted. In view of the affidavit of Dr. K.S. Soin and Dr. Ajit Singh, there is no other option to hold that even the tests were not got conducted at the instance of Dr. Harpreet Singh. From the other affidavits, it is clear that the respondent never visited Malout city in connection with treatment of any patient. There is no evidence against the doctor to hold him negligent, and dismissed the complaint.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.03.2005, the appellant has come up in appeal.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the District Forum has ignored the affidavits filed by the appellant as well as Sardool Singh and the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 which prove that the appellant has been taking treatment from the respondent and the respondent has altogether denied to have referred for tests or treated the appellant and the District Forum dismissed the complaint, by solely relying upon the affidavit of the respondent and his colleague doctors and the order is wrong and the appeal may be accepted.
13. On the other hand in the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the respondent is Associate Professor and Head of Deptt. of Pharmacology and is not an Allergic Specialist, nor is running any nursing home. The testing centres have given the affidavits that the respondent never referred the appellant for any tests. Earlier, the appellant filed a complaint no.34 of 2003 on 23.05.2003 which was dismissed by the District Forum, Muktsar on 11.08.2003 and the appeal was also First Appeal No.526 of 2006 5 dismissed on 09.01.2004. Again on 09.02.2004, the appellant filed the same complaint and the same was dismissed by the District Forum, Ludhiana on 28.03.2005 and the second complaint was filed after two years and three months and is barred. The prescription slip does not bear any date or name of the patient and the same is tampered. The reference column is blank and the respondent never treated the appellant and the appeal may be dismissed.
14. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely scanned the entire material placed on the file.
15. The version of the respondent Dr. Harpreet Singh is that he is Associate Professor and Head of Department of Pharmacology and is not Allergic Specialist, nor he is running any nursing home and the appellant has not taken any treatment from him nor he referred the appellant for any tests.
16. This version of the respondent stands falsified from the documents placed on file by the appellant. Ex.C1 is the prescription slip issued by the respondent to the appellant, wherein he recommended certain medicines to be taken for seven days. Again vide Ex.C2, some medicines were recommended. Ex.C3 are the calculations made by the appellant. Ex.C4 photograph depicts the clinic and consultant doctors in which, name of the respondent appears. Ex.C5 is the M.B. Diagnostic Lab. report and the appellant was referred by the respondent to Dr. Ajit Singh and the tests were carried out. Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 are the reports of Soin Diagnostics Centre. Ex.C9 is the Blood Examination Report and the appellant was recommended by the respondent to Dr. Ajit Singh for the blood examination and the report was given by Dr. Ajit Singh. Ex.C10 is the reference made by the respondent to Soin Diagnostic Centre. Appellant has filed his own affidavit.
17. To rebut this evidence, the respondent has filed his own affidavit and as per him, the prescription slips Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 have been forged, but the respondent has not examined any expert to prove that the prescription slips Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 are forged and fabricated by the appellant. The respondent has supported his version by filing affidavits of Dr. Rupinder Singh First Appeal No.526 of 2006 6 Gill, Dr. K.S. Soin, Dr. Navtej Singh, Dr. M.P. Sethi and Dr. Ajit Singh. Dr. K.S. Soin, Proprietor of Soin Diagnostic Centre, Ludhiana deposed that ultrasound of one Udham Singh was conducted on 29.10.2001 but he was not referred by Dr. Harpreet Singh, but the deposition of this witness is against the record. Likewise, Dr. Ajit Singh deposed that Blood Examination Reports dated 29.10.2001 pertaining to Udham Singh were issued by him, but the said tests were never recommended by Dr. Harpreet Singh. In the reports Ex.C5 and Ex.C9, words "Dr. Harpreet Singh" were never written by him, but these words have been forged later on.
18. The whole case of the respondent is that he never treated the appellant, nor he recommended for any tests and the prescription slips as well as the test reports have been forged, so far as the reference made by him is concerned. As stated above, the respondent has not examined any expert to prove that his signatures or his name was forged and fabricated by the appellant. The witnesses of the respondent namely Dr. Ajit Singh and Dr. K.S. Soin are deposing against their own record and the respondent has not brought any evidence on record to prove that the appellant has any enmity with him or has any motive to file a false case against him. The respondent has very conveniently procured the affidavits of his colleague doctors. Out of them, the above two doctors have deposed even against their own record and as such, the version of the respondent cannot be believed. The total denial of the fact that the appellant was never examined by him further shows his act and conduct and the District Forum without taking into consideration all these facts, only relied upon the affidavits of the doctors, who supported the version of the respondent, but altogether ignored the evidence brought on record by way of prescription slips, reports above mentioned and, thus, the order of the District Forum is against the facts and record and is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
19. The respondent has placed on file the calculations Ex.C3, but the said calculations are not supported by any bills, cash memos and as First Appeal No.526 of 2006 7 such, the calculations mentioned in Ex.C3 cannot be taken into consideration and the appellant cannot claim the amount mentioned in the said calculation list, but the fact remains that the appellant had been taking treatment from the respondent and has undergone various tests at the diagnostic centres, including the blood tests and the denial of the respondent in toto against the record shows his conduct.
20. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order dated 28.03.2005 under appeal passed by the District Forum, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is partly accepted and he is awarded Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation, costs, medical expenses etc. The respondent shall pay this amount to the appellant within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 28.07.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member August 02, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)