Haryana

Sonipat

CC/126/2014

SANDEEP JAIN S/O RAJKUMAR JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. RAMA MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL ,2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. ,3. DR. V.K. GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

VIPIN JAIN

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                                     Complaint No.126 of 2014

Instituted on: 08.05.2014                    

Date of order: 27.11.2015

 

 

Sandeep Jain son of Raj Kumar Jain, r/o H.No.69, Pocket G-5, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi at present 1/298, Garhi Ghasita, Gopal Nagar, near Shiva Hospital, Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

1.Rama Multi Speciality Hospital, Delhi-Bahalgarh road, Bahalgarh, Sonepat.

2.Dr VK Gupta c/o Rama Multi Speciality Hospital, Delhi-Bahalgarh road, Bahalgarh, Sonepat.

3.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office 204R, Model Town, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Vipin Jain, Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Dinesh Kumar Bedi Advocate for respondent no.1&2.

           Shri RP Antil Adv. for respondent no.3.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has met with an accident on 6.1.2013 and he suffered a fracture in the bone of his right thigh.  The complainant was admitted by respondent no.2 in his hospital and the injury suffered by the complainant on his thigh was operated. The complainant was discharged on 17.1.2013 by the respondent no.1 and 2 and the complainant has spent Rs.65350/- on his treatment. The complainant visited the respondent no.1 and 2 time and gain and made complaint regarding the pain in the operated right thigh continuously.  But every time, the respondent no.2 assured the complainant that his leg will be completely healed up within 10/15 days.  But the complainant was having no relief and thus, he consulted Shiva Hospital on 6.2.2013 and Parnami Orthopaedic Hospital on 26.4.2013 and Doctors of BPS Govt. Medical College Khanpur on 11.5.2013 and all the doctors told the complainant that he was not operated properly and they all suggested for second operation of his right thigh.  The complainant was admitted on 3.6.2013 in BPS Govt. Medical College and was again operated on 5.6.2013 and implant inserted by the respondent no.2 was replaced with new one and Bone Grafting was done on the right thigh of the complainant.   The complainant had started recovering after the operation conducted by the doctors of BPS Govt. Medical College Khanpur, Sonepat and the complainant has spent Rs.1 lac on his follow up treatment from BPS Govt. Medical College, Khanpur,Sonepat and this all has happened due to the negligence on the part of the respondent no.2.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents appeared and filed their separate reply.

         The respondents no.1 and 2 in their separate reply has submitted that the complainant was admitted on 6.1.2013 with complaint of fracture femur. The complainant was given the best treatment by the respondent no.2 but it is the complainant who himself did not come for follow up treatment. The complainant did not comply with the instructions given to him by the respondent no.1 and 2.   The treatment was given by the respondent no.2 as per medical norms and the best treatment was given to the complainant. There was no negligence on the part of the respondent no.2, as the respondent no.2 is a highly qualified orthopaedic surgeon and has a vast experience in the field of orthopaedic surgery. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         The respondent no.3 has filed the reply by taking the same and similar  pleas as has been taken by the respondent no.1 and 2 in their reply.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by  the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2, the complainant has not only suffered unnecessary mental agony, harassment, but he has also suffered unnecessary huge financial loss.  The respondent no.2 has operated the thigh injury of the complainant.  But every time when the complainant visited the respondent no.2, he made complaints regarding pain suffered by him. The respondent no.2 every time assured that the injury will be completely healed up within 10/15 days. But it was the false assurance because he consulted Shiva Hospital on 6.2.2013 and Parnami Orthopaedic Hospital on 26.4.2013 and Doctors of BPS Govt. Medical College Khanpur on 11.5.2013 and all the doctors told the complainant that he was not operated properly and they all suggested for second operation of his right thigh.  The complainant was admitted on 3.6.2013 in BPS Govt. Medical College and was again operated on 5.6.2013 and implant inserted by the respondent no.2 was replaced with new one and Bone Grafting was done on the right thigh of the complainant.   The complainant had started recovering after the operation conducted by the doctors of BPS Govt. Medical College Khanpur, Sonepat and the complainant has spent Rs.1 lac on his follow up treatment from BPS Govt. Medical College, Khanpur,Sonepat and this all has happened due to the negligence on the part of the respondent no.2.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 has submitted that the complainant was admitted on 6.1.2013 with complaint of fracture femur. The complainant was given the best treatment by the respondent no.2 but it is the complainant who himself did not come for follow up treatment. The complainant did not comply with the instructions given to him by the respondent no.1 and 2.   The treatment was given by the respondent no.2 as per medical norms and the best treatment was given to the complainant. There was no negligence on the part of the respondent no.2, as the respondent no.2 is a highly qualified orthopaedic surgeon and has a vast experience in the field of orthopaedic surgery. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         But after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the opinion that there was negligence on the part of the respondent no.2 while treating the complainant. There is nothing on record from the side of the respondent no.2 that the complainant has not followed his instructions or he did not come up for follow up treatment.

         The complainant for the first time approached the respondent no.2 on 6.1.2013 and was discharged after operation on 17.1.2013 by the respondent no.2.  Since the complainant feel no relief, he has approached Shiva Hospital on 6.2.2013,  11.2.2013, 13.2.2013, 15.2.2013, 18.2.2013, 6.3.2013, 19.6.2013. The complainant also approached Parnami Hospital on 26.4.2013.  He also got treatment from BPS Govt. Medical College Khanpur Kalan, Sonepat.

         The complainant in support of his case has obtained some information from BPS GMC For Women, Khanpur Kalan Sonepat which is reproduced below:-

 

“In reference of para no.2-Yes, Sandeep patient was operated in Ortho Deptt. on 5.6.2013.

In reference of para no.3-It was his 2^nd Operation.

In reference of para no.4(A) as there was malunited fracture® Supra Condylar Femur with implant in situ.

(B) New implant with bone grafting was done (LCP).”

 

         So, from the above information sought by the complainant under Right to Information Act from BPS GMC for Women, Khanpur Kalan, Sonepat, it is proved that the complainant was again reoperated for the same injury which was operated by respondent no.2.  From the treatment given by the doctors of BPS GMC for Women Khanpur Kalan, Sonepat it is established that there was negligence on the part of the respondent no.2 while treating the complainant and due to this act and conduct of the respondent no.2, the complainant not only has suffered huge financial loss, but has also suffered unnecessary mental agony and harassment at the hands of the respondent no.2.  Further BPS GMC for Women, Khanpur Kalan, Sonepat has not mentioned anywhere that the complainant ever remain negligent in following the instructions of the respondent no.1 doctor or his follow-up treatment.

         Ex.C13 is the estimate of Rs.46080/- which was paid by the complainant to Jai Hanuman Medicose and Surgicals Rohtak.  The complainant being the poor person and to save 12% tax, has not obtained the cash memo from the said shop.

         The complainant is still under treatment and he was operated twice for his no fault, but due to the negligence treatment given by the respondent no.2. 

         The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.5 lacs from the respondents besides Rs.90350/- spent by him on his treatment we.f. 6.1.2013 and Rs.1,40,000/- spent by him towards the second operation.

         In our view, Rs.two lacs compensation would be an adequate for the complainant to be granted from the respondents. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.two  lacs) for rendering deficient and negligent services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The perusal of the case file shows that the respondent no.2 has taken professional indemnity policy from respondent no.3 for the period w.e.f. 15.06.2012 to 14.06.2013 and the incident of wrong treatment given by the respondent no.2 is of dated

6.1.2013 which covers the insurance policy of respondent no.2 issued by respondent no.3. Thus, since the respondent no.2 is insured with respondent no.3, we hereby direct the respondent no.3 insurance company to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2 Lacs(Rs.two lacs) on behalf of respondent no.2 doctor to the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

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

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (DV Rathi)            (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 27.11.2015