Haryana

Sonipat

07/2014

NANCY MINOR D/O BALWAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. DR. V.K. GUPTA ,2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ TYAGI

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                       SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.07 of 2014

Instituted on: 02.01.2014                                                     

Date of order:14.07.2016

 

 

Nancy minor daughter of Balwan Singh, through her father Balwan Singh son of Raghbir Singh, resident of village Rohad, tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar.

 

…Complainant.        Versus

1.Dr VK Gupta, Rama Multispeciality Hospital, Sonepat road, Bahalgarh ,  district Sonepat.

2.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, 204-R, Model Town Atlas road, Sonepat through its Divisional Manager (Insurer of Respondent no.1 Hospital)

 

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. SL Tyagi, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. PK Bhagat, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Surender Malik, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

1.       Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that the complainant Nancy suffered fracture in her left hand and the complainant contacted the respondent for her treatment on 13.5.2013 and the respondent advised the complainant that she will have to undergo operation for her left hand for proper treatment.  On 14.5.2013, the respondent wrongly conducted the operation of the left hand of the complainant, due to this, pain increased in the left hand of the complainant and the same was infected due to puss.  The respondent has charged Rs.13400/- from the complainant for the operation and further charged Rs.5000/- for her treatment upto 21.5.2013.  Thereafter, the complainant contacted Dr SS Bhogal, Aneja Hospital, Sonepat who told the complainant that her hand has been wrongly operated upon and the same will have to be re-operated for proper treatment.  The complainant further sought advice from Dr Sanjeev Jain of Aristo Hospital & Trauma Care Centre, Sonepat and his operation was the same as that of Dr SS Bhogal.  It is also alleged that the complainant got operated her left hand from Dr Anil Sharma, JJ Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurgarh, distt. Jhajjar and the complainant has spent Rs.1 lac.  It is alleged that the complainant  requested the respondent to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs but of no use and even the legal notice dated 26.6.2013 served upon the respondent has also not brought any fruitful result. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents appeared and filed their separate written statement.

         The respondent no.1 in his written statement has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the  part of the respondent no.1 while treating the complainant. The complainant came with fracture which was quite old and she was having wooden sticks right over her left hand as she had been taking treatment from some local person/doctor at her village.  On examination, the respondent no.1 found puss in the bone of her hand and on the advised of the parents, she was operated upon and puss was drained and the complainant remained admitted for one day in the hospital of the respondent no.1 i.e. upto 14.5.2013.  The complainant never made any complaint of pain in any manner to the respondent no.1 and after 26.5.2013, the complainant never  visited the respondent no.1 for any further treatment or check up.  The respondent no.1 has denied the fact that the complainant was wrongly operated by the respondent no.1 or that she suffered pain in her left hand after the operation or that she did not get any relief till she was attended by the respondent no.1 till 26.5.2013. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent no.1 while treating the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief or compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.2 has filed their separate reply on the basis of the contents of the reply filed by the respondent no.1.  The respondent no.2 has filed the reply in the similar manner as has been filed by the respondent no.2.

         In the present case, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has filed an application for giving direction to the complainant to undergo the test before the Board at PGIMS Rohtak.  Vide order dated 4.8.2015, the Medical Superintendent, PGIMS, Rohtak was requested to constitute the Medical Board of doctors specialists in the field of Ortho for examination of the complainant and to submit the report whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent doctor or not?

         Vide letter No.PGIMS/MB/16/2269 dated 27.4.2016, report was received in this Forum vide diary no.128 dated 2.5.2016. The relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

         “In view of the above mentioned findings, the board is of the opinion that any infection in bone or soft issues requires drainage or curettage which was performed at the first consultation by Dr VK Gupta at Rama Multispeciality Hospital under the cover of antibiotics.  This is the normal course of treatment of such infection.  The board could not find any negligence in treating this patient”.

         Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is that whether the complainant is entitled for any kind of relief against the respondents or not?

         We have perused the report of Medical Board and it totally speaks against the complainant and it also speaks that the complainant has leveled false and baseless allegations of medical negligence on the part of the respondent doctor.

         There is no rebuttal from the side of the complainant against the contents of the report of Medical Board, thus, we are unable to ignore the same and has come to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief and she has leveled the false and baseless allegations of medical negligence against the respondent doctor and thus, we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)    (J.L. Gupta)        (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,    Member, DCDRF              President, DCDRF

Sonepat.     Sonepat.              Sonepat.

 

Announced 14.07.2016