State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parshotam Dass vs Dr. Dev Raj Aggarwal on 5 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.910 of 2011
Date of institution : 09.06.2011
Date of decision : 05.12.2013
Parshotam Dass (aged 27 years) son of Shiv Lal son of Sohan Lal,
Resident of Bhagta Bhai, Tehsil Phool, District Bathinda.
.......Appellant- Complainant
Versus
Dr. Dev Raj Aggarwal care of Aggarwal Hospital, Bhagta Purana,
District Moga.
......Respondent- Opposite Party
First Appeal against the order dated
19.05.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Sarwinder Goyal, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri P.K. Kataria, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant, Parshotam Dass, against the order dated 19.5.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the issuance of direction to the respondent-opposite party, Dr. Dev Raj Aggarwal, to pay sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for negligent services/medical expenses, Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, physical loss, harassment and agony suffered by him, was dismissed. First Appeal No.910 of 2011. 2
2. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant and his family members had been visiting the hospital of the opposite party regarding their medical check-up and treatment for the last 10/12 years. On 1.4.2009 he was suffering from normal temperature/fever and got himself checked from the opposite party, who started treating him by giving the assurance that he would be alright within two-three days. He was provided with medicines for the treatment of the fever and drip of glucose was also administered. He was advised by the opposite party to visit the hospital daily for check-up and for glucose drip. He was not cured of the fever even after treatment for one week and as a result of the dose of glucose drip, his abdomen started inflating. The intestines in the abdomen ruptured, as a result of the negligence of the opposite party and he suffered severe physical problems. For his further treatment, he was got admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh, for operation and remained admitted at that place from 8.4.2009 to 19.4.2009 and again from 26.2.2010 to 26.3.2010. For his treatment in PGI, Chandigarh, he spent Rs.20,000/-. On account of the negligence of the opposite party, he suffered financial loss of more than Rs.2,50,000/-. As a result of the negligence of the opposite party, he suffered a lot and his life became hell. It was on account of his negligence that he is not in a position to do his work. He had been running PCO in the Village and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month and has been deprived of that income, as he is unable to do work. In fact, he has become a burden on his family. He is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- for the mental tension and physical sufferings and on First Appeal No.910 of 2011. 3 account of negligence on the part of the opposite party. He prayed for the issuance of the directions accordingly.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party, who filed a detailed written reply. He pleaded therein that the complainant never visited his hospital for medical check-up or treatment. He never came to him on 1.4.2009 and, as such, there was no question of any treatment or giving the glucose drip. The complaint has been filed with a mala fide intention and on some ill-advice. He is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for having filed false and frivolous complaint against him. In fact, there was a dispute regarding the marriage of one Vicky son of Shri Prem Kumar and he was a Member of the Panchayat for the settlement of that matrimonial dispute, which could not be settled. That dispute was with the sister-in-law of Shiv Lal and the complainant is the son of that Shiv Lal. It was on account of that grudge that he filed the present complaint.
4. Both the sides produced their evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant at the time of arguments did not touch the findings as recorded by the District Forum and came out with a new case. He submitted that the opposite party was required to display in his clinic his registration number as RMP and First Appeal No.910 of 2011. 4 was also required to mention that number in the prescription slips issued by him to the patients. No such registration number was displayed in the clinic nor was mentioned in the prescription slip; which itself shows that he is not a registered medical practitioner. The carrying on the medical profession without such a certificate clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and medical negligence. In support of those submissions, he referred to the provisions of the Punjab Medical Registration Act, 1916 and the (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in Revision Petition No.1949 of 2003 decided on 25.7.2003 (Dr. Baleshwar Prasad & Another v. Firtu Das Mahant).
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that no such case was put up by the complainant before the District Forum and, as such, there was no opportunity with the opposite party to prove that he is duly registered under the said Act and that he had been complying with the provisions of that Act and had been following the Regulations. The complainant cannot be allowed to plead altogether new and different case in the appeal.
8. It was never the case of the complainant in the complaint or before the District Forum that the opposite party is not a Registered Medical Practitioner. He himself pleaded in para no.2 of the complaint that from the last 10/12 years, he along with his family members is visiting the hospital of the respondent for their medical treatment and check-up. That itself shows his confidence in the opposite party as a doctor for the last so many years. He cannot be First Appeal No.910 of 2011. 5 allowed to plead a new case in the appeal. No doubt, in the prescription slips placed on the record, the registration number of the opposite party is not mentioned but there is no such requirement under the above said Act that he was required to give that number in the prescribed slips. Had he be given an opportunity, he might have been able to prove on the record that he was Registered Medical Practitioner. He was not required to prove, without any averment against him, that he had been following the above said Regulations. In the first instance, the complainant was required to aver such a fact and only thereafter the opposite party was required to rebut the same. When at no stage before the District Forum the complainant came up with a plea that the opposite party is not a Registered Medical Practitioner, he cannot be allowed to take up this plea in this appeal for the first time and the judgment so cited by him cannot be considered. In fact, in the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has not been able to assail the findings recorded by the District Forum and, as such, we do not find any ground to set aside that order. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
9. The arguments in this case were heard on 27.11.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)
December 05 , 2013 MEMBER
Bansal
First Appeal No.910 of 2011. 6