State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Veerpal Kaur Wife Of Gurpinder Singh vs State Of Punjab, Department Of Health on 19 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.422 of 2004
Date of institution : 15.4.2004
Date of decision : 19.1.2010
1. Veerpal Kaur wife of Gurpinder Singh son of Darshan Singh;
2. Gurpinder Singh son of Darshan Singh;
Both residents of St. No.2, Hira Singh Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil and
District Faridkot.
.......Appellants
Versus
1. State of Punjab, Department of Health through its Secretary, Chandigarh.
2. Managing Director, Health Corporation, Punjab, Chandigarh.
3. Civil Surgeon, Faridkot being head.
4. Dr. Raminder Kaur, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kotkapura,
Tehsil Faridkot.
5. Dr. Ramesh Sikry, Medical Campus, Faridkot.
6. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kotkapura through its Branch Manager.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 10.3.2004 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Faridkot.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri Suresh Singla, Advocate.
For respondents No.1 to 5 : None.
For respondent No.6 : Shri Rajneesh Malhotra , Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Veerpal Kaur appellant No.1 wife of Gurpinder Singh appellant no.2 was admitted in Civil Hospital, Kotkapura on 11.7.2001 for delivery purpose. She was attended by Dr. Raminder Kaur respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 charged a First Appeal No.422 of 2004. 2 sum of Rs.500/- from appellant No.1 for calling the Anaesthetist. She also charged a sum of Rs.500/- for herself.
2. It was further pleaded that appellant No.1 was taken to the operation theatre by respondent No.5. Anaesthesia was given to appellant No.1 by pricking needles in her backbone for 20/21 times. As a result the backbone of appellant No.1 was punctured. She had raised hue and cry. Thereafter appellant No.1 was referred to G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot in a very precarious condition. Appellant No.1 gave birth to a female child in GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot on 15.7.2001.
3. It was further pleaded that because of the medical negligence on the part of respondents No.4 and 5 the lower limb of appellant No.1 had become dead. In order to save themselves they had referred her to GGS College and Hospital, Faridkot. The life of appellant No.1 was in danger. She had developed complete loss of senses on both the lower limbs.
4. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellants filed the complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short "District Forum") claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.75,000/- as medical expenses. Interest and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that appellant No.1 was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Kotakpura and respondent No.4 was the only Medical Officer posted in that hospital. However she was not the Incharge of the Hospital. It was pleaded that Dr. Rakesh Sikry respondent No.5 was an experienced and able Anaesthiest having 22 years medical experience. He had also spent 6/7 years in this field and also served as Registrar (Anaesthesia), in Government Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot for about 4 years.
6. It was further pleaded that respondent No.5 had tried with local anaesthesia but appellant No.1 had become restless. Therefore no medicine was injected. First Appeal No.422 of 2004. 3 Rather appellant No.1 was referred to GGS College and Hospital, Faridkot. The general condition of appellant No.1 was stable and she was shifted to GGS Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot after giving I/V drip and other supportive treatment. It was denied if her life was in danger or her condition was precarious. It was denied if any money was charged from the appellants by respondent No.4. It was further pleaded that since it was a Government Hospital, appellant No.1 was not a 'consumer'. It was further pleaded that respondent No.4 had taken the indemnity insurance policy from respondent No.6 which was valid for the period from 24.5.2001 to 23.5.2002. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. The appellants tendered in evidence bills of various dates from Annexure-1 to Annexure-57. Veerpal Kaur appellant No.1 appeared in the witness box and proved her affidavit Ex.P1. She tendered herself for cross-examination and was cross-examined at length. The appellants also proved documents Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-17. The appellants filed the affidavit of Dr. R.K. Kaushik, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana as Ex.P18. He tendered himself for cross-examination and was cross-examined at length. He also tendered Photostat copy of complete file of the patient Veerpal Kaur (appellant No.1) as Ex.P19. The appellants further proved OPD slips Annexure P-20 to Annexure P-26. Smt. Sheela Devi, Clerk, Civil Hospital, Kotkapura was also examined. She proved the record of the Civil Hospital, Kotakpura as Ex.P-27. The appellants further filed the affidavit of Dayal Singh son of Sohan Singh as Ex.P-28. They also proved receipts Ex.P-29 to Ex.P-36. The appellants also examined Dr. Harkiran Kaur, Head of the Department, Gyane, GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot who filed her affidavit as Ex.P-37. She also tendered file of treatment as Ex.P-38. She tendered herself for cross-examination and was cross-examined at length. The appellants also proved documents Ex.P-39 to Ex.P167. Gurpinder Singh Appellant No.2 filed his own affidavit dated 3.12.2001. First Appeal No.422 of 2004. 4
8. On the other hand, the respondents tendered literature Ex.R1, Ex.R1/A, Ex.R3, Ex.R3/A to Ex.R3/D. The respondents also filed the affidavit of Dr. Rakesh Sikri as Ex.R4 and the affidavit of Dr. Raminder Kaur Ex.R5. They also tendered original insurance cover note as Ex.R6. They also filed the affidavit of Balwinder Kaur as Ex.R7, affidavit of Urmila Devi as Ex.R8. Respondent No.6 filed the affidavit of Parvinder Singh, Senior D.M., The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Faridkot as Ex.RX. Dr. Rakesh Sikri and Dr. Raminder Kuar tendered themselves for cross-examination and they were cross-examined at length.
9. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents placed on file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 10.3.2004.
10. Hence the appeal.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 10.3.2004 be set aside and the appellants be awarded adequate compensation.
12. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
13. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
14. Admittedly Veerpal Kaur appellant no.1 was admitted in Civil Hospital, Kotakapura which is a Government Hospital. It is also admitted that Dr. Raminder Kaur respondent No.4 was working as a doctor in Civil Hospital, Kotakapura in those days and Dr. Rakesh Sikri was posted as Anaesthetist.
15. The appellants have alleged that they had made the payment of Rs.500/- to respondent No.4 on account of the services of the Anaesthetist and Rs.500/- to respondent No.4 for herself. These allegations have been denied by the First Appeal No.422 of 2004. 5 respondents. The appellants have not placed on the file any receipt nor have proved that they had made these payments to respondent No.4.
16. In other words, there is no evidence on the file to prove if the appellants had made any payment for any consideration for availing medical services of the respondents. It was a Civil Hospital/Dispensary of the Punjab Government where medical services were provided to appellant No.1 free of costs without charging any medical fee. Therefore the appellants do not fall in the definition of 'consumers' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Only those persons can become consumers who avail the services on payment basis. Since the appellants have not made any payment to the respondents, therefore, they are not the consumers qua the respondents.
17. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "State of Punjab vs. Shiv Ram & others" (2005) 7 SCC 1 and the latest judgment of Hon'ble National Commission reported as "Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalagaon v. Shaguna Bai Naval Singh Chauhan" AIR 2009 NOC-1211 (NC).
18. This Commission had also taken the similar view in the judgment dated 25.11.2009 passed in First Appeal No.487 of 2004 "Satnam Kaur vs. Punjab Health System Corporation and others".
19. Keeping in view the discussion held above, the appellants are not the consumers. Therefore the complaint filed by them under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable.
20. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
21. However the appellants would be at liberty to resort to any other legal remedy available to them.
22. The arguments were heard in this case on 12.1.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No.422 of 2004. 6
23. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
January 19 , 2010 (PIARE LAL GARG)
Bansal MEMBER