State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukhvir Singh And Others vs Civil Hospital Mansa And Others on 22 July, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.225 of 2021
Date of institution : 02.07.2021
Reserved on : 18.07.2022
Date of decision : 22.07.2022
1. Sukhvir Singh, S/o Sukhcharan Singh R/o Village Jawaharke, Tehsil
and District Mansa.
2. Sarbjeet Kaur D/o Sukhcharan Singh now w/o Bhupinder Singh R/o
Musa, Mansa, Tehsil & Distt. Mansa.
3. Maninder Kaur D/o Sukhcharan Singh now w/o Niramal R/o Khiali
Chahalawali, Tehsil and District Mansa.
4. Manjit Kar D/o Sukhcharan Singh now w/o Surji Singh, Khiali
Chahalawali, Tehsil and District Mansa.
.......Appellants/Complainants
Versus
1. Civil Hospital, Mansa through Chief Medical Officer, Mansa.
2. State of Punjab through Secretary, Government of Punjab, Punjab
Secretariat, Chandigarh, Health Department, Chandigarh.
3. Municipal Committee, Mansa through its Executive Officer (E.O.)
4. Max Health Care, Bathinda through its Managing Director/Manager.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal U/S 41 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 against the Order dated 25.03.2021
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No F.A.No.225 of 2021 2
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By:-
For the appellants : Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate For respondents No.1&2 : Sh. Narinder Singh, Advocate for Sh.H.S.Maan, Advocate For respondent No.3 : None For respondent No.4 : Sh.Raghav Goel, Advocate URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER Appellants-Sukhvir Singh and Ors. have approached this Commission by filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 25.03.2021, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mansa (in short "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint against OPs- Civil Hospital, Mansa & Ors. has been dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the complaint are that the Sukhcharan Singh the father of the complainant was admitted in the hospital of OP No.1 on 23.05.2018 due to dog bite on the left hand. Sukhcharan Singh died to inadequate treatment given by the doctors of OP No.1 Hospital whereas the father of the complainants was physically fit person was and doing agriculture work for meeting out the house hold liabilities. Doctors injected four injections and his treatment was going on but on 12.06.2018 the condition of their father become a critical and was taken to Max Hospital Bathinda for better treatment and due to rabies their father was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He was taken to PGI Chandigarh on 14.06.2018 for treatment but after observation made by the doctors it F.A.No.225 of 2021 3 was declared that patient could not be cured at this stage as the rabies were spread in incurable stage. It was further mentioned that it had happened due to negligence of earlier treatment as anti rabies injections were not given to the patient for curing the dog bite. Seeing no hope, the complainants brought their father at home where he died at 2.30 on 16.06.2018. A police complaint was lodged at Police Station City-I, Mansa bearing DDR No.022. Due to insufficient treatment of OP No.1 Hospital, the complainant had incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.29,994/- at Max Hospital Bathinda including other expenses. Deficiency in service was alleged on the part of OP no.1. It was further mentioned that OPs No.2 and 3 were supposed to safeguard the life of citizens. The complainant prayed for acceptance of complaint and directions to the OPs to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation with interest.
4. Upon notice, OP No.1 filed separate reply and contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections, that the District Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and it was liable to be dismissed. Further, the complaint was filed with an ulterior motive to injure the goodwill and reputation of OP No.1, otherwise the Patient was OPD patient and was attended in OPD.Anti rabies vaccine was given to him and he was advised to visit again after 3,7,13,27 days but he never approached the concerned doctor after 23.05.2018. On 26.05.2018, 30.05.2018 and 04.06.2018 he got injection from anti rabies clinic staff at Civil Hospital Mansa but he did not approach the concerned doctor. On 14.06.2018, the patient came in emergency ward and Dr. Neha Goyal, EMO attended him. At that time his condition was very critical as he was known history of carcinoma caecum (cancer) and after giving first aid he was referred to higher centre for further management. It was further mentioned in the reply F.A.No.225 of 2021 4 that anti rabies vaccine was given to the patient but anti rabies serum was not available with OP No.1. Cause of death was Pulmonary Thromoemblism, which is a clot formation in lungs vessels due to cancer. OP No.1 denied the other allegations of the complainant.
5. OP No.3 (Municipal Committee, Mansa) filed separate written reply, raising objections that the District Commission had no territorial jurisdiction,the complaint was filed on false facts and the complainants were not consumers. It was further averred that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3, hence, dismissal of complaint was prayed for by denying the other allegations as made in the complaint.
6. Despite service, OP No.4 did not appear before the District Commission and proceeded exparte vide order dated 04.11.2019.
7. After going through the pleadings of the parties, appraisal of the evidence adduced by them and hearing the arguments, the District Commission dismissed the complaint by holding that the complainant failed to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, as the onus to prove the same was on them.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 25.03.2021, the appellants/complainants have filed the present appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record and the written arguments filed by them.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants/complainants submits that the appellants and their family members tried their best to save the life of Sukhcharan Singh, but could not succeed on account of negligence of the Civil Hospital Mansa, as anti rabies serum was not injected within 24 hours. F.A.No.225 of 2021 5 The appellants had incurred expenses on further treatment on account of negligence of Civil Hospital Mansa. The appellants relied upon Biological test report dated 07.07.2018 Ex.C-13 whereby Sukhcharan Singh was shown to be found positive for rabies. Learned counsel further submits that Sukhcharan Singh was not a patient of cancer but the District Commission has completely ignored this aspect of the case, which according to him a great lapse on the part of the District Commission. On the above referred grounds learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
11. Rebutting the contentions of the counsel for the appellants, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the allegation of negligence on the part of OP No.1 and 2 are totally wrong as the available Anti Rabies Vaccine was given to the patient, but Anti Rabies Serum was not available with OP No.1. Medical record shows that the cause of death was patient PulomanaryThromoembolisn, which is clot formation in lungs vessels due to cancer.
12. In this regard a reference to the relevant notification dated 30.07.2013, issued by the issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, (General Branch) (OP-3 in the complaint) is necessary to be made here under:-
Government of Punjab Department of Local Government, (General Branch) ORDER Comprehensive Scheme for Controlling dog population in compliance of the order of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court passed on 31-10-2012 in CWP No.9902 of 2012-Kuljit Singh Bedi Vs. State of Punjab and others.
*** F.A.No.225 of 2021 6 In compliance of the order of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh passed on 31-10-2012 in CWP No.9902 of 2012 titled as Kuljit Singh Bedi v/s State of Punjab and others and in pursuance of the Punjab Municipal (Registration and Proper Control of Stray Animal) Bye Laws 2006. The following comprehensive scheme is framed to control stay dogs in municipal areas of the State of Punjab.
1. Registered Society in every Corporation/Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat:-
That a Society for Stray Canine Birth Control (SSCBC) shall be registered under the Society's Registration Act 1860 under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner in case of Corporation/Deputy Commissioner in case of Councils at District Head Quarters/Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) in case of the Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat and supported by a representative of the Public Health Department, a Veterinary doctor representative of the District Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, at least two representatives from The Animal Welfare Organizations operating within the local authority, Deputy Director of Veterinary Department and Executive Officer/Secretary of the Corporation/Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat as Member Secretary. The Society shall carry out the functions given in clause 5 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 and provide a common platform between various Govt. agencies to work together in synchronization to put coordinated and concerted efforts to strengthen the sterilization and anti rabies immunization of stray dogs to control their population, thereby decreasing the incidence of deadly disease such as Rabies.
13. Vide notification/order dated 30.07.2013 issued by Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government a comprehensive Scheme was framed for controlling the dog population in compliance of the order passed in CWP No.9902 of 2012 in case titled as 'Kuljit Singh Bedi Vs. State of Punjab and others', by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 31.10.2012. Said comprehensive scheme was framed to control stray dogs in municipal areas of the State of Punjab relating to registered society in every Corporation/Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat. Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SCPA) were also created under the control of Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. Work of sterilization of Stray dogs and survey of stray dog population was entrusted to Corporations/Municipal Committees/Councils/Nagar Panchayat. Animal F.A.No.225 of 2021 7 Husbandry Department, Punjab to provide the details of infrastructure for the purpose of sterilization and immunization of stray dogs. The copy of said notification was also circulated to all the Municipal Commissioners, Corporations in the State of Punjab, the Regional Deputy Director, Urban Local Bodies, the Deputy Commissioner in the State of Punjab and all the Executive Officers, Municipal Councils/Nagar Panchayats in the State of Punjab. In view of the said notification Municipal Committees/Commissioners were empowered to look after the residents of all the societies as it was the duty and responsibility of Municipal Committees. There are also certain statutory provisions contained in the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act and Rules and the Regulations relating to the stray dogs. The injections of anti rabies are provided in all the Municipal Corporations and Hospitals not only in the municipalities but also in the Civil Hospitals of each District/sub-Division District.
14. Since either of the party did not bring this fact to the notice to the District Commission, said provisions of said notification and impugned order has been passed without considering the facilities/benefits available to the residents of that areas as per said notification. Had this notification been in the knowledge of the District Commission, the different order could have been passed.
15. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to remand the case by setting aside the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the District Commission with the direction to the District Commission to allow both the parties to bring on record said notification and matter be reconsidered after taking into consideration the objectives and other provisions/features of said notification to see as to whether the complainant party could have been benefited in view the provisions of that notification. F.A.No.225 of 2021 8
The case is remanded to the District Commission for taking fresh decision by granting liberty to both the parties to place on record any evidence/documents in their support. The District Commission is also directed to make all the efforts to decide the case preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Parties are also directed to appear before the District Commission on 22.08.2022.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the District Commission Mansa for expeditious compliance.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and the pandemic of COVID-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER July 22, 2022 (Rupinder 2)