Complainant Manjit Kaur  through the present complaint has sought the necessary directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, physical agony, harassment and suffering from acute pain etc. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- being spent by her on her treatment, due to the sheer negligence of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that on 4.8.2014, she met with road accident and received multiple grievous injuries and she was admitted in the hospital of the opposite parties. In the said accident, her left leg was injured and she got treated from the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and she remained admitted in their hospital for about one month. The opposite party no.2 has operated her leg three times in one month. The opposite party no.2 had not provided proper treatment to her and due to the said reason, her leg has been got amputated by the opposite party no.2. She has been discharged from the hospital and thereafter she went to her home and remained  at her home for about 10 days and after that she again received severe pain in her leg. She again visited the opposite parties who after seeing the same, told her that her leg has not properly been cured. Again she remained admitted in the hospital for 18 days and the opposite party no.2 has again done fourth operation on her leg and she was discharged from the hospital and after some time she again started receiving severe pain in her left leg.  She approached SKR Hospital and Trauma Centre, Malikpur Chowk Pathankot and  got admitted in the said hospital on 6.9.2016 and they again conducted another operation and discharged her on 8.9.2016 and the said operation was successful. She has earlier spent Rs.5,00,000/- on her treatment in the Hospital of the opposite parties which the opposite parties have done wrong operations and  remained negligent in their work. It is next pleaded that she also remained bed ridden for long period and she has also suffered acute pain due to wrong diagnose and operations and she has been compelled to spent another huge amount in the SKR Hospital, Pathankot due to wrong operations. These illegal acts of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the parts of the opposite parties which necessitated her to file the instant complaint. Due to the illegal act of the opposite parties, she has suffered huge monetary loss and suffered mental and physical agony from the hands of the opposite parties. She has number of times approached to the opposite parties with the request to admit her claim and to compensate her, but they have not admitted her claim nor made any payment in the shape of the compensation to her. Hence this complaint.

3.         Upon notice, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their joint written version through their counsel, taking the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is absolutely false, frivolous and the complaint is time barred. On merits, it was submitted that she was brought under shock, profusely bleeding and badly crushed with BP 70 with serious condition of left leg and left foot and all the left bones and vital structure exposed with no soft issue on the left leg and left foot i.e. soft issues loss and profusely sweating and she was under shock and as such in order to save her life, emergency resuscitation was done to her by the team of doctors including intensivist and other team of doctors in the ICU including Dr.Vikas Kakra and her seriousness  was told to her relatives and written consent was obtained from them before the operation and other needful done to save her. She was fit to be taken to operation and other needful done to save her life. She was fit to be taken to Operation Theater on the next morning. The plastic surgeon examined  every part of the limb and advised amputation below knee immediately as all the vital parts were crushed and non viable, multiple surgery was done to save the knee. She remained coming to opposite party for regular follow up initially and there was no complaint of any kind. The complainant again came to opposite party on 27.08.2014 and patient was again admitted on small infected wound and wound was explored and clean thoroughly with antiseptic and debridement was done and complainant remained there upto 09.09.2014. In the meanwhile the best treatment was given and advised required medicines and required tests were done. Thereafter she left the hospital in full satisfaction as post operative was satisfactory. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.        Upon notice, the opposite party no.3 appeared and filed its written version through its counsel, taking the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is absolutely false, frivolous; no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite party to file the present complaint, hence the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, all averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

 5.      Complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit ExC1 along with other documents exhibited as Ex.C2 to Ex.C40 including Ex.C-32A and closed the evidence.

6.   Dr.Ajay Abrol opposite parties no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1,2/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1,2/2 to Ex.OP-1,2/9 and closed the evidence.

7.     Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sunil Tuli Divisional Manager Ex.OP-3/1, alongwith copy of Insurance policy Ex.OP-3/2 and closed the evidence.

8.       We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some documents vital for the present adjudication in spite of the ample opportunity available for the purpose. We observe that the complainant side has not produced (on records) any cogent evidence or even otherwise an acceptable documentary evidence of legal value so as to prove her allegations (Affidavit Ex.C1) as put forth in the present complaint. Somehow, she has based her allegations on layman’s interpretation(s) of the OP’s medical treatment/medicine prescriptions (Ex.C2 to Ex.C20) that are deviated/imbalanced to support the complainant’s own version; even otherwise she has failed to prove any statutory ‘deficiency in service’ on the OP’s part also with assistance of second diagnosis and medical treatment (Ex.C21 to Ex.C39) at the other SKR Hospital and Trauma Centre (at Pathankot) who did not find/mention any failings in the medical-treatment as meted out at the OP Hospital, at the hands of the OP Doctor. It has been unfortunate that the complainant had received a grave injury to the lower parts of her left leg that had to be subsequently amputated below the knee. Moreover, it took ‘two’ long years to heal the wound and naturally the complainant has been fed up with the misery of pain and incurring expenses that she changed the Hospital and filed the present complaint but she somehow, could not establish any statutory deficiency in the OP’s treatment so as to have a favorable award, under the adjudicating Act.      

9.       We further find and are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish her allegations/charges against the OP Doctor/Hospital for any ulterior motives etc but here the OP Doctors have proved to provide the best treatment as available with them. All the exhibited evidentiary documents do indicate ‘grave’ injury to the lower parts of the left leg that had to be subsequently amputated below knee.

10.     Moreover, It has always been the complainant’s own discretion to have ‘second opinion’ and treatment of her choice and she has exercised it well. Moreover, it has not been anyway proved on records that the opinion/ treatment as put forth by the opposite parties (here) has been medically ‘wrong and incorrect’. These different opinions are not ‘unwarranted’ so long as these do not drift away from the known and acceptable medical science. Lastly, we find the deposition(s) and document(s) as submitted by the opposite parties to be quite true, genuine & bonafide and thus accept these as admissible on records. We are also convinced with the OP’s plea that going by the medical precautionary custom and practice the present medical treatment was provided to the complainant.

11.     Finally, in the light of the all above, we do not see any merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal, however, with no orders as to its costs.

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                         (Naveen Puri)

                                                                              President.      

ANNOUNCED:                                                      (Jagdeep Kaur)

December, 13 2017.                                               Member

*MK*