State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Dr.Ashok Kumar Gupta.2.Smt.Vijay ... vs Sunil Kumar Shah Son Of Shri Joginder ... on 9 May, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1176 of 2008 Date of Institution: 09.05.2008 Date of Decision: 09.11.2012 1. Dr.Ashok Kumar Gupta 2. Smt.Vijay Gupta wife of Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, both residents of Village Sarhaul, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. Appellants (Ops) Versus Sunil Kumar Shah son of Shri Joginder Shah, Kathuna Bazar Nepal District Sartari, Ward No.5, Mohanpur Panchyat Nepal, at present C/o Vinod Kumar son of Shri Maha Ram Yadav, Village Sarhaul, Tehsil and District Gurgaon on behalf of his wife Smt. Malti Devi. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Mrs. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for appellants. Respondent exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 10.03.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon whereby the appellants-opposite parties have been held negligent and deficient in service while treating Smt. Malti Devi-wife of the respondent-complainant and issued following directions:-
We, therefore, allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- on account of cost of litigation. Order be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Smt. Malti Devi wife of the respondent-complainant was in advance stage of her pregnancy. On 15.01.2004 Malti Devi developed labour pain and was admitted in the clinic of the appellants-opposite parties. Opposite Parties gave glucose to the patient and assured that the child would be delivered within an hour.
The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that the opposite parties took seven hours and they did not allow the complainant to shift his wife to any other doctor with better facilities. The opposite parties pulled the child out as a consequence of which the uterus of Malti Devi came out and then the opposite parties became nervous and asked the complainant to take Malti Devi to any other hospital. As the condition of patient had deteriorated, she was taken to Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon where she was operated upon. The doctors of Kalyani Hospital told that the condition of the patient had deteriorated because of unprofessional handling of the patient by the opposite parties. Malti Devi developed Cardio-Respiratory-arrest during her treatment in Kalyani Hospital and she was put to ventilator. Complainant further alleged that his wife also got mentally disturbed and the complainant had to spend Rs.75,000/- on the treatment and Rs.30,000/- on other expenses and Malti Devi was still under treatment on the date of filing complaint. Thus, alleging it a case of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,25,000/- together with interest.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement stating therein that the complainant was neither G.P.A. nor any authorised person to file the complaint on behalf of Malti Devi and therefore the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable. It was denied that Malti Devi was not in a position to file complaint.
It was admitted that the opposite party No.2 was mid-wife (Dai) in Village Sarhaul who took Diploma from C.M.O. Centre, Naran, Saharanpur (U.P.). Opposite Party No.1 was not running any clinic in Village Sarhaul. It was denied that the wife of the complainant was admitted in the clinic of the opposite parties, rather, wife of the complainant had come to the opposite party No.2 with some person for the help in the delivery matter and after seeing the condition of the patient, she was advised to be admitted in General Hospital, Gurgaon where she was admitted. The opposite party No.2 had accompanied Malti Devi on humanitarian ground. The other allegations levelled by the complainant were denied. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
Heard.
At the very outset it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the complaint filed by complainant was not maintainable because the alleged treatment was given to Malti Devi and not to the complainant. The plea of the complainant that Malti Devi was not in a position to file complaint is not tenable as there is nothing on the record to suggest that Malti Devi was not in a position to come to the Consumer Fora to depose against the opposite parties. Neither any G.P.A. nor any medical certificate has been produced by the complainant in this regard.
We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. It is the case of the complainant that his wife Malti Devi was admitted in the clinic of the opposite parties and she was given proper treatment by the opposite parties. Meaning thereby, the negligence resulted into injury of personal nature to Malti Devi and not to the complainant. Though the complainant has taken the plea in the complaint that his wife Malti Devi was not able to file complaint but no evidence was produced by the complainant in this regard. Even the complainant has not tendered any G.P.A. on behalf of his wife Malti Devi and therefore the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate this legal aspect of the case, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal and Rs.34,350/- deposited on 27.07.2010 as per the order of State Commission, be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 09.11.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member