State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satwinder Kaur vs Dr. Poonam B.A.M.S., Param Poly Clinic, on 8 July, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1313 of 2011
Date of institution: 30.8.2011
Date of decision : 8.7.2013
Satwinder Kaur w/o Manpreet Singh s/o Gurjant Singh, resident of Village
Mehma Surja, Tehsil and District Muktsar.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Dr. Poonam B.A.M.S., Param Poly Clinic, Malout Road, Sri
Muktsar Sahib, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. Dr. Vikram, M.S., Ashirwad Hospital Muktsar Road, Sri Muktsar
Sahib, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 27.7.2011
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. K.S. Sekhon, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Sh. A.S. Gill, Advocate PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant-
Satwinder Kaur(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 27.7.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the appellant got her ultra-sound examination on 08.04.2010 from Patiala Diagnostic Centre, Mall Road, Guniana Mandi and as per the Ultrasound report First Appeal No. 1313 of 2011 2 she was pregnant of sixteen weeks and fetus was alright. She again got scanned on 28.05.2010 from P.S. Bhandri Diagnostic Centre, Malout Road, Muktsar and as per report "NO OBVOUS CONGENITAL ABNORMALITY SEEN" and fetus was of 22 weeks and 6 days. It was further pleaded that the appellant in the month of May, 2010 came to her parents' house and started taking treatment and advice from respondent No.1. The appellant was admitted in the hospital of respondent No.1 for delivery but during delivery bleeding was started due to negligence of respondent no.1 and the life of the appellant was in danger due to excess bleeding. It was told by respondent No.1 that there was mass (Rassauly) which was ruptured and due to that the bleeding had been started. Respondent No.1 referred the appellant to respondent No.2, who operated upon the appellant without any diagnose or test and without going through the reports. The appellant remained five days in the hospital of respondent No.2, who charged Rs.25,000/- as fee for operation, Rs.7,500/- for cost of medicines and Rs.1,000/- as cost of blood but the same was not given to the appellant. Respondent no.2 also not issued any bill to the appellant. Respondent No.2 also not given the treatment record to the appellant despite the visit on 01.10.2010 of the appellant with her husband. The appellant also asked respondent No.2 to show mass as she was doubtful that there was no mass in her womb but respondent No.2 told that the said mass had been sent to Laboratory for its test/analysis. The appellant also requested respondent No.2 to tell the name of the laboratory then respondent No.2 started misbehaving with the appellant. The appellant was First Appeal No. 1313 of 2011 3 suffering from severe pain in her lower abdomen after discharge from the hospital of respondent No. 2. She consulted Dr. Jindal of Jindal Hospital, Muktsar and Badyal Advanced Bone Joint and Children Hospital, Bhatinda and spent Rs.20,000/- more on her treatment.
3. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 was not a qualified Doctor and both the respondents did not exercise degree of care and skill and have given wrong treatment to the appellant. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to pay Rs.53,500/- i.e. Rs.33,500/- paid to Dr. Vikram and Rs.20,000/- paid to other Doctors for treatment as well as various tests and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of physical pain, mental tension and unnecessary harassment as well as Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice reply was filed by respondent No.1 taking the preliminary objections that the complaint was false, frivoulous and vexatious and filed with malafide intention to extort money from the answering respondent, there was no medical report regarding negligence on the part of the answering respondent, the appellant did not fall under the definition of 'Consumer' and there was no negligence on the part of the answering respondent. On merits, it was pleaded that the answering respondent never told the appellant that there was mass, after delivery bleeding started due to Uterine inversion and it was a case of PPH and urgent Surgery was needed. The appellant was referred to respondent No.2, who is a qualified doctor. The answering respondent is B.A.M.S. and the clinic was also First Appeal No. 1313 of 2011 4 having the services of MBBS Doctor on call. The answering respondent used her skill and knowledge and correctly diagnose the ailment i.e. a case of uterine inversion and PPH and immediately after the delivery referred the appellant to respondent No. 2, who is an Surgeon. It was prayed that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent no.1, as such, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. Respondent No.2 also filed the reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable as there was no medical report of any medical board regarding alleged negligence as per law. On merits, it was pleaded that the appellant was brought in the hospital on 17.09.2010 in Hypovolemic shocked due to Uterine Inversion and urgent Surgery was needed as the case was of PPH. There was bleeding due to uterine inversion but there was no mass in the uterus of the appellant. It was pleaded that required urgent surgery was conducted/performed for correction of uterine inversion and to control PPH. Before surgery, the entire medical process was adopted and successful surgery was conducted and best medical treatment which was required given to the appellant. She was discharged on 20.09.2010 in satisfactory condition. It was stated that the answering respondent never told the appellant and her husband that there was any mass in her uterus. It was also denied that the answering respondent had charged Rs.25,000/- for operation, Rs. 7,500/- for medicines and Rs. 1,000/- for blood from the appellant. Only Rs. 8,500/- was charged including operation charges, operation theatre charges, room charges and Anesthesia charges which was First Appeal No. 1313 of 2011 5 given by Doctor M.L.Aswani, M.D.Anesthesia and receipt of Rs.8,500/- was given to the appellant. The appellant also visited the hospital of respondent No.2 on 01.10.2010 as OPD patient to follow up post operative treatment. No complaint regarding any pain was made by the appellant to the answering respondent. It was also denied that the answering respondent mis-behaved the appellant or her husband. It was a concocted and after thought version of the appellant only to extort money from the answering respondent. It was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with special cost of Rs.20,000/-.
6. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order dated 27.07.2000.
7. Aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the present appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that respondent No.1 is not a qualified doctor to give any injection or treatment by way of direct blood transfusion or glucose to the appellant but this fact was not considered by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum is against the evidence on record and the findings of the District Forum are liable to be set-aside.
8. There are admitted facts that the appellant was admitted in the hospital of respondent No.1 for delivery and the delivery was normal. There was also no allegation regarding the child. Only the grievance of the appellant is that due to deficiency and wrong treatment by the respondent No.1, there was excess bleeding and life of the appellant came in dangerous condition. But the appellant has not produced any expert evidence to prove the negligence on the part First Appeal No. 1313 of 2011 6 of respondent No.1. There is a general allegation against the respondent No.1 that due to negligence during the delivery, the bleeding was started and her life was at risk. It is admitted fact that respondent No.1 when failed to control the bleeding, she immediately referred the appellant to respondent No.2, who is a qualified Surgeon. The appellant was operated by respondent No.2 and bleeding was controlled. The appellant and her child were discharged on 20.09.2010 by the respondent No.2 in satisfactory condition.
9. We have perused the case file. Ex.OP-2/B of the appellant and as per diagnose, the appellant was suffering from "Uterine Inversion". There is neither any allegation in the complaint nor any evidence produced by the appellant to prove that "Uterine Inversion" was due to negligence of respondent No.1 during delivery. There is also no allegation against respondent No.2 that he was negligent in treatment and only allegation against respondent No.2 is that he charged Rs.35,000/- from the appellant, which was very excess. But on the other hand, the version of respondent No.2 that he charged only Rs.8,500/- and proper receipt was issued and given to the appellant.
10. It is pleaded case of the appellant that after discharge from the hospital of respondent No.2, there was severe pain in her lower abdomen and she got checked herself from Jindal Hospital, Muktsar, Badyal Advanced Bone Joint and Children Hospital, Bhatinda, also got tested herself from Patiala Diagnostic Centre, Mall Road, Guniana Mandi and R.K.Lab's, Bhathinda and spent Rs.20,000/- but the appellant had not produced any evidence/opinion First Appeal No. 1313 of 2011 7 vide which the above Doctors had given any report/opinion that there was any negligence in treatment on the part of the respondents.
11. It is also alleged by the appellant that respondent No.1 had wrongly diagnosed that there was mass in her uterus which caused problem of bleeding but no evidence or any diagnose slip produced by the appellant to prove this allegation against respondent No.1.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors.", 2010(2) RCR (Civil)-161(SC) held that:-
"the doctor was not guilty of negligence when the hospital and doctors attended the deceased with utmost care, caution and skill and the doctor who performed the operation had taken reasonable care and adopted the procedure which in his opinion was in the best interest of the patient."
13. The allegation of the appellant is that respondent No.1 is only B.A.M.S., as such, she was not competent to give any injection or treatment by way of direct blood transfusion or glucose to the appellant and she was not exempted to practice either allopathic medicines or modern system of medicine in any form. But respondent No.1 has produced notification dated 30.10.1996 issued by Central Council of Indian Medicines Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Dehli, by which she was competent to use allopathic medicines, which is reproduced:-
"NOTIFICATION As per-provision under Section 2(1) of the Indian-Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (48 of 1970) here by Central Council of Indian Medicine Notifies that "Institutionally qualified practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine (Ayurved, Siddha & Unani) are eligible to practice Indian Systems of Medicine and Modern Medicine including Surgery, Gnaecology and Obstetrics based on their training and teaching which are included in the First Appeal No. 1313 of 2011 8 syllabi of via courses of ISM prescribed by Central Council of Indian Medicine after approval of the Govt. of India. The meaning of the word "Modern Medicine" (Advances) means advances made in various branches of Modern Scientific Medicine, Clinical, non- clinical bio-sciences also technological innovations made from time to time and notify that the courses and curriculum conducted and recognized by the Central Council of Indian Medicine are supplemented with such modern advances.
Further it is clarified that the rights of practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine to practice modern scientific system of Medicine (Allopathic Medicine) are protected under Section 17(3)(b) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.
Sd/-
(R.K. JAIN) Registrar-cum-Secretary Central Council of Indian Medicine"
14. Respondent No.1 also produced notification dated 18.06.2004 issued by Govt. of Punjab, the relevant para of the same is reproduced here below:-
"The matter has been examined by the Government. In view of the Notification/letters issued by CCIM from time to time, it is clarified that institutionally qualified practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine (Ayurveda, Sidha, and Unani) are eligible to practice Indian Systems of Medicine and Modern including Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics based on their training and teaching which are included in the syllabi of their courses of ISM prescribed by Central Council of Indian Medicine after approval from Government of India."
15. So as per the above notifications, respondent no.1 was competent to practice Indian system of medicines and modern medicines including Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics. Even in the complaint no allegation is also leveled against respondent No.1 by the appellant that any injection or glucose was administered by respondent No.1 to the appellant during the course of delivery. First Appeal No. 1313 of 2011 9
16. The appellant also made a complaint Ex.OP-4 to the S.S.P., Muktsar and the same was investigated by D.S.P. (Sub Division, Muktsar). The D.S.P. recorded the statements of the parties. The D.S.P., Muktsar vide his report EX.-OP-1 found that there was no negligence on the part of the respondents in treatment and the complaint was made on false allegations to extort money from the respondents.
17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no evidence to prove that there was any negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents.
18. The order passed by the learned District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal of the appellant is meritless and the order of the District Forum is speaking one. The impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. The appeal of the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 1.7.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
July 8, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member
First Appeal No. 1313 of 2011 10