State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Suresh Son Of Sh. Nihal Chand, Resident ... vs 1.Dr. D.K. Puri, Psychetary ... on 31 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1146 of 2008 Date of Institution: 05.05.2008 Date of Decision: 31.10.2012 Suresh son of Sh. Nihal Chand, resident of Bhatia Nagar, Tohana through Smt. Kamlesh wife of Suresh Resident of Tohana. Appellant (Complainant) Versus 1. Dr. D.K. Puri, Psychetary Specialist, Puri Sychatary Center (Manorog Kendra), Medical Mor Rohtak. 2. Dr. Bal Kishan Goel, Neuro Surgeon, Dayal Nursing Home (Goyal Neuro Care Centre) D.L.F. Colony, Rohtak. 3. Dr. Sunil Dhusa, Dayal Nursing Home D.L.F. Colony Chowk, Rohtak. 4. National Insurance Company Limited S.C.F. 1-2, Rani Talab, Jind. 5. United India Insurance Company Limited, Rohtak. 6. United India Insurance Company Limited, 16-M, Gole Market, Maha Nagar, Lucknow. Respondents (Ops) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Sh. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for appellant. Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.03.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Rohtak whereby complaint bearing No.152/2008 filed by the appellant-complainant against the respondents-opposite parties alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service, has been dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
The complainant was suffering from depression and for taking treatment, he was brought to the opposite party No.1 who further brought the patient to opposite party No.3 and electric shock was given to the complainant and also prescribed some medicines. According to the complainant he started groaning of pain and when the complainant brought this fact to the notice of the opposite parties No.1 and 3, they assured that the complainant would be well within short period. But there was no improvement in the health of the complainant, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 advised the complainant to get himself examined from the opposite party No.2 who is ortho specialist who told that the complainant would be well within 1-2 days. When the complainant did not get any relief, he was brought to Taj Mohammad X-Ray Wale, Tohana. After x-ray the complainant came to know that due to electric shock, the bone hip of the complainant was broken. The family members of the complainant brought the complainant to Dr. B.B. Nagpal of Balaji Charitable Hospital where he was admitted on 27.2.2004 and hip of the complainant was replaced. According to the complainant, his bone hip was broken due to negligence of the opposite parties in collusion with each other. Thus, alleging it a case of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.
Opposite Parties while contesting the complaint denied the allegations of the complainant and stated that the complainant was treated as OPD patient and that no ECT (Electro Convulsive Therapy) was ever given to the complainant. Rest of the allegations were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint with the following observations:-
After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that except the document Annexure-C34 there is no other document placed on file by the complainant to prove any negligence on the part of opposite parties. But this document is not supported by the affidavit of the Investigating Officer i.e. Dr. D.K. Sharma. In this regard as per the authority reported in I(2008) CPJ 392 (NC) titled H.S. Tuli Vs. PGIMS & research as per which it has held that: Inquiry report can be used as inputs in decision-making process-Not mandatory for Consumer Fora to give judgment relying totally on reports of inquiry conducted by medical institutions. Moreover, as per the authority reported in I(2008) CPJ 170 of U.T. Chandigarh, cited above, it has held that: No expert evidence produced in support of negligence or lack of due care and caution on part of OP at any stage-Deficiency in service not proved-No relief entitled and as per the authority reported in 2007(3) CLT 97 cited above, it has held that: Petitioner did not file any affidavit of any expert nor he chose to cross-examine either of the doctor-Order of the Fora below dismissing complaint of the petitioner upheld. The authorities cited above by ld. Counsel for the opposite party are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, authorities cited by ld. Counsel for the complainant are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order passed by the District Consumer Forum while dismissing the complaint.
Hence, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 31.10.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member