DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 201 of 18.07.2007<br /> Decided on : 04-10-2007 <br /> <br /> Sukhvir Singh Wd/o Sh. Jang Bahadur, R/o 132 Adarsh Nagar, Near Gurudwara Lal Singh, Dhobiana Basti, Bathinda<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Barnala Road, Bathinda, through its Medical Superintendent. ... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Harkirat Singh Sidhu, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Gurjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay her Rs. 18,000/- alongwith interest @18% P.A. w.e.f. 8.11.06; another sum of Rs. 10,000/- for mental tension, agony botheration and loss to her reputation and Rs. 3300/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that on 8.11.06 her husband Jang Bahadur Singh was cleaning 32 Bore 7.65 MM Pistol in the morning. Unluckily trigger of the Pistol was pressed and it fired the shot. Bullet hit the backside of the head of the complainant. He was taken to civil hospital from where he was shifted to Adesh Institute, Barnala Road, Bathinda, for treatment vide CR No. 06/11/18373 on 8.11.06. Opposite party got deposited a sum of Rs. 21,050/- vide receipt No. 14207 dated 8.11.06 i.e. Rs. 50/-, Rs. 17,000/-, Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards admission fee, operation charges, Cardiac Monitor, Ventilator, ICU charges and Anesthesia charges respectively. Her husband died prior to the performance of the operation and administration of anesthesia. Hence, amount of Rs. 17,000/- deposited for operation and Rs. 1,000/- on account of anesthesia charges are liable to be refunded. Request was made to the opposite party to refund this amount, but it continued putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Attitude of the opposite party has caused her mental tension, harassment bothertion and loss to her reputation for which she is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/-.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; intricate questions of law and facts are involved which cannot be decided in summary procedure under the Act and as such complainant, if so advised, may approach the civil court. On merits, it admits that husband of the complainant was admitted. A sum of Rs. 21,050/- was got deposited from his attendants vide bill No. 14207 dated 8.11.06. It denies that her husband died prior to the operation. Inter-alia its plea is that he was operated upon at 1.45 p.m. on 8.11.06 by Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Prior to the operation, anesthesia was administered by Dr. Dinesh Singla, Anesthetist. So the amount deposited for operation and anesthesia charges is not liable to be refunded. Doctors performed their duty to the best of their ability. Since the injury was on the vital part of the body, patient could not be survived. It denies deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part and the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of her allegations contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of intimation sent to Police Station Cantt, Bathinda (Ex. C-2), photocopy of Patient Bill (Ex. C-3), photocopy of prescription slip (Ex. C-4), photocopy of receipt dated 9.11.06 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of prescription slip (Ex. C-6), photocopies of retail invoices (Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-9) ), photocopy of receipt dated 8.11.06 (Ex. C-10), photocopy of retail invoice (Ex. C-11) and photocopy of post mortem report (Ex. C-12).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite party affidavit of Dr. Sanjay Gupta (Ex. R-1), photocopy of case record and operation note (Ex. R-2), photocopy of consent (Ex. R-3) and affidavit of Dr. Sukhdev Singh Dhaliwal (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite party.<br /> 7. Some facts become undisputed in this case. They are that husband of the complainant was admitted on 8.11.06 in Adesh Institute. He was having gun shot injury on the back side of his head. Amount of Rs. 21,050/- was got deposited vide bill copy of which is Ex. C-3. Out of this amount, Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- were taken for operation and as anesthesia charges respectively. Her husband Jang Bahadur Singh died in the hospital i.e. the opposite party.<br /> 8. As per complaint, husband of the complainant had died prior to the administration of anesthesia and performance of operation and on that account sum of Rs. 18,000/- i.e. Rs. 17,000/- as operation fee and Rs. 1,000/- for anesthesia charges is liable to be refunded as opposite party is not paying the same. To the contrary plea of the opposite is that anesthesia was administered and husband of the complainant was operated upon and as such, no amount is liable to be refunded. Only argument pressed into service by the learned counsel for the complainant is that as per copy of the post mortem report Ex. C-12, one metallic piece was recovered during disection and bone fragments were also recovered from cranial cavity. He further submitted that in case anesthesia was administered and operation was performed upon the husband of the complainant, question of availability of metallic piece from the injured portion of the brain did not arise. To support it, he also drew our attention to the affidavit of the complainant which is Ex. C-1.<br /> 9. Mr. Gurjeet Singh Sidhu, learned counsel for the opposite party vehementally argued that evidence on the record establishes that anesthesia was administered and operation was performed. This is evident from the operation notes copy of which is Ex. R-2 as well as from the affidavits Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-4 of Doctors S/Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Sukhdev Singh Dhaliwal respectively. Even the documents produced and relied upon by the complainant i.e. post mortem report clearly shows that operation was performed upon her husband.<br /> 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite party. There is no allegation of the complainant that there is medical negligence on the part of the opposite party. Her only grievance is that anesthesia was not administered and operation was not performed on her husband and as such amount got deposited for anesthesia and performance of the operation to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- be refunded. A perusal of Ex. R-3 reveals that consent was given by the relatives of the husband of the complainant for his operation. Various medicines and items were prescribed by the doctors for operation as is evident from Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-6. They were purchased from the Drug Store as is evident from Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-9 and Ex. C-11. Complainant is not claiming the return of medicines/items purchased or price thereof. If anesthesia was not administered or operation was not performed with regard to the injury to the husband of the complainant, she must have claimed the return of the unused medicines or price thereof. From this, inference is drawn that anesthesia was administered and operation was performed and on that account complainant is silent on this aspect of the matter. Opposite party has proved its version by way of affidavit of its Medical Superintendent which is Ex. R-2. Husband of the complainant was operated upon at 1.45 p.m. on 8.11.06 by Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Prior to operation, anesthesia was administered by Dr. Dinesh Singla as is clear from the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Details of the operation notes also clearly show that operation was performed at about 1.45 p.m. on 8.11.06 by Dr. Sanjay Gupta and prior to it, anesthesia was administered at 1.40 p.m. Even thereafter during the operation period, anesthesia was administered to the injured many a times for successful performance of the operation. Operation was completed at 3.10 p.m. as is clear from Ex. R-1. Patient was shifted to ICU and put on Ventilator with E.T.T and remained under his treatment and care and died at 3.20 a.m. on 9.11.06. Injury was on the vital part of the body and unfortunately husband of the complainant could not be survived. As mentioned above, gun shot injury was on the most vital part of the body i.e. Head. Bullet had effected the brain. Hence, conclusion cannot be arrived at to the effect that no anesthesia was administered and operation was not performed only from the fact observed in the post mortem report that one metallic piece was recovered from the cranial cavity. In such like case there cannot be thorough probe of the brain matter of a patient when he is alive to know the existence of the metallic pieces. In case brain is thoroughly probed for such purpose when patient is alive, it may lead to his death. Body of the husband of the complainant was subjected to autopsy and in this process during thorough probe of the brain matter, one metallic piece was recovered. This thorough probe of brain matter is possible after death. Rather post mortem report supports the plea of the opposite party. It is mentioned in the post mortem report that 1-1/2 cm x 1-1/2 cm stitched wound 6 cm above from upper end of Rt ear Pinna over lying parietal region and V shape stitched wound 20 cm extended from upper 4 cm above left eye brow were present. It is not the plea of the complainant that wounds were stitched either in civil hospital, Bathinda or any where else prior to the time when her husband was brought to Adesh Institute. Post mortem report has been relied upon by the complainant herself. It fully establishes that husband of the complainant was operated upon for the injury received by him. Had there been no operation their could not have been stitched wounds on the person of the patient. Post mortem report gets support from the affidavit of Dr. Sanjay Gupta who performed the operation. Bald affidavit of the complainant is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of the opposite party which has been referred to above. From the facts and circumstances, crux of the matter is that record establishes that anesthesia before operation was administered and thereafter husband of the complainant was operated upon. Opposite party rendered the services for the purpose for which amount of Rs. 18,000/- was got deposited and as such, the question of refund of this amount, does not arise. No deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is proved and as such, complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for.<br /> 11. Totality of the facts, circumstances and evidence discussed above lead us to the conclusion that complaint is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 04-10-2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member