Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.      The facts, in brief, are that, on 5.8.2012, at about 10:00 p.m., the complainant, his colleagues and friends, went for dinner, at the restaurant of the Opposite Parties.  Among other things, they also ordered for a dish called RANN, comprising boneless pieces of mutton.  However, immediately on consuming the said dish, the complainant felt excruciating pain, in his throat, and rushed to the washroom.  He vomited twice there and the traces of blood were seen in the same.   Upon this, the complainant and his friends started leaving for the Hospital, but they were allowed, after making payment of Rs.6,500/- i.e. the amount of bill. The complainant was immediately taken to the Fortis Multispecialty Hospital, Mohali, at about 11:30 p.m. on 05.08.2012. He was rushed to the emergency of the said Hospital.  After conducting preliminary tests, the Doctors of the said Hospital, concluded that the complainant had consumed a fish bone, which had cut his food pipe, upto lower part of the throat, which needed immediate surgery.  The surgery was carried out, at around 11:00 a.m., on 06.08.2012, and the fish bone was removed.  It was stated that due to negligence, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant, had not only incurred Rs.77,040/-, on his hospitalization, but also suffered tremendous mental agony and physical harassment. When the Opposite Parties were asked to pay compensation, to the complainant, they failed to do so. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, claiming various reliefs.

11.       Perusal of the aforesaid report of the Hospital, clearly established that the complainant underwent laryngoscopy, followed by UGI endoscopy, under G/A, in OT, on 06.08.2012, and further that one centimeter fish bone was removed from the vallicula.  From the averments, contained in the complaint, duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant, by way of evidence, and fortified by discharge summary, of the Fortis Hospital Annexure C-1, referred to above, the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion that, it was on account of negligence, on the part of the Opposite Parties that fish bone was served to him (complainant), in the dishes, ordered by him, his colleagues and friends. The mere fact, that one of the dishes, ordered by the complainant was RANN, which comprised boneless pieces of mutton, did not rule out the possibility of mixing Tandoori Pompret, fish dish with bone, with the same (RANN). The Opposite Parties, were, thus, certainly deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant.

12.       No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, that, as per the discharge summary Annexure C-1, it was not clearly established that fish bone was removed from the vallicula of the complainant, by the Doctors of the Fortis Hospital. However, this submission of the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, does not appear to be correct. Under the diagnosis, in Annexure C-1, discharge summary, it was in clear-cut terms, written as under:-

Foreign Body Ingestion (Fish Bone in Orophagus)-removed under G/A in MSOT

13.       The Doctors, who conducted operation, upon the complainant, and removed fish bone one centimeter, from his Orophagus, and recorded this fact in Annexure C-1, could not be disbelieved. No doubt, under the heading Course in Hospital, against fish bone question mark (??) was made. That did not mean, that fish bone was not removed from the vallicula of the complainant. Removal of fish bone is evident, from the entire reading of the discharge summary Annexure C-1. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.