National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pankaj Sharma vs Dr. C.M. Bhagat on 9 February, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 204 OF 2009 Pankaj Sharma 52/F, Second Floor, Lane No.9, Mohan Nagar Pankha Road, New Delhi 110 046 Complainants Vs. 1. Dr. C.M. Bhagat 2. Dr. Upasna Bhagat 3. Dr. Nisha Bhargava 4. Bhagat Hospital Through its Medical Superintendent Addresses No.1ato 4 at: Bhagat Hospital D-2/48-49, Janakpuri New Delhi 110 058 5. Dr. Uma Sharma 6. Dr. M.M. Hamidi 7. Dr. Ashok Kumar Raina 8. Dr. A.K. Shukla 9. Dr. Dr. Anil Gurnani 10.Dr. S. Chandra 11.Dr. Rajiv Motiani 12.Dr. A.K. Verma 13.Kailash Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. Addresses No.5 to 13 at: Kailash Hospital & Research Centre Ltd., Through its Medical Superintendent H-33, Sector 27, NOIDA 201 301 14, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Jawahar Market, Model Town, Rohtak 124 001 15. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Sundaram Towers 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai 600 014 16. All India Institute of Medical Sciences Through its Medical Superintendent, New Delhi 110 029. Opposite Parties BEFORE:- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Complainant : Mr. Sanjay K. Chaudhry, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Sharma, in person Pronounced on : 9th February, 2010 ORDER
PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, MEMBER In this complaint, medical negligence is alleged against 3 doctors of Bhagat Hospital and 8 doctors of Kailash hospital. The allegations are carelessness; in competency of doctors; conspiracy of doctors OP Nos. 1 to 3; that the doctors OP nos. 1 to 3 and other staff of hospital hatched conspiracy to get rid of his wife BY shifting her to Kailash hospital with whom Bhagat hospital has tie up; that doctors OP Nos. 5 to 12 misguided and concealed the condition of his wife with a view to fleece money to the tune of lacs of rupees. Except for bare averments in the complaint, no substantiative pleadings have been incorporated in the complaint to prove medical negligence.
The compensation claimed is highly exaggerated without providing basic data on the basis of which the compensation is claimed. The complainant seeks reimbursement of medical expenses to the tune of Rs.25.00 lakhs spent on treatment and other connected expenses.
However, only material placed on record is bill of Bhagat hospital to the tune of Rs.27,285/- and letter dated 10.9.08 and bills of Kailash hospital. From letter dated 10.9.2008, it can be seen that the total bill was to the tune of Rs.4,41,205/- but the complainant had paid only Rs.2.85 lakhs and a sum of Rs.1,56,205/- is still outstanding. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.40.00 lakhs on account of loss of earning due to death of his wife. There is not substantive pleading as to the employment of wife of the complainant in the complaint and the only document filed is income tax return for the assessment year 2006-07 where income of Rs.1.08 lakhs income from business or profession and Rs.11,100/- income from other sources - Gross total income being Rs.1,19,100/-. The deceased was 30 years of age at the time of death and obviously she would have spent substantial amount of her earning on herself and on her family. The complainant has also claimed expenses of Rs.25.00 lakhs per child i.e. to say Rs.50.00 lakhs. No basic details in respect of the said claim have been given like age of the children, school in which they were studying, the educational expenses, etc. and the claim made is without any basis whatsoever. Besides this, compensation of Rs.25.00 lakhs is sought for mental agony, harassment and torture. The total claim made is Rs.1,50,50,000/-. The claim is highly inflated and exaggerated without any basis whatsoever and would not, prima facie, fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, which is one crore and above.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain or admit this complaint and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The complainant may, in case he so desires, seek remedy available to him in appropriate Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction other than the National Commission by incorporating basis and data as also the nexus of negligence of the doctors complained of in the pleadings.
(R.K. BATTA. J) MEMBER k