Haryana

Panchkula

CC/219/2014

SUDAMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ALCHEMIST HOSPITAL. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

25 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	219 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	10.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	25.05.2015

                                                                                          

Sudama, R/o Flat No.E-44, GHS-92, Sector-20, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Alchemist Hospital, Sector-21, Panchkula-134112, Haryana.

2.       Dr.Harsh Garg, Alchmist Hospital, Sector-21, Panchkula (Haryana).

3.       United India Insurance Company Ltd., 42-C, 3^rd Floor, Moolchand Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110024.

4.       The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Coram:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

Mr.Nitin Sood, Adv., for the OP No.1.

Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Adv., for the Op No.2 alongwith Dr.Harsh Garg.

                             Mr.Nitin Gupta, Adv., for the OP No.3.

                             None for the Op No.4.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The complainant had a stone in his liver. For purposes of extraction of the stone, he visited OP No.1/hospital where he was operated upon by OP No.2 (Dr. Harsh Garg) on 13.08.2014. In the course of interaction prior to the operation, the complainant was told that he would be billed for an amount of Rs.18,000/-, as per the rate fixed by the Govt. of Haryana for such an operation. Post-operation, however, the complainant was billed for an amount of Rs.66372/- which (amount) included the rites for the medicines as well. At the time of discharge on 15.08.2014, the complainant was advised to continue with the indicated medicines and injections for a period of 7 days. On one of the visits for purposes of getting the injection and dressing, it was found that there was puss in the stitching. On query, the complainant was told by OP No.2 that the infection would be over after he had undergone 4/5 dressings and had had few injections.
2. On 20.08.2014, the complainant was given an injection for the severe pain he felt in the stomach and he regained consciousness after a duration of 18 hours, before being discharged on 22.08.2014 against a payment of Rs.42531/- which included the price of medicines purchased as well.
3. The dressing, the injections as also the anti-biotics continued for a period of 7 days but the infection did not get cured. On 02.09.2014, when the complainant visited the hospital, an ultrasound examination of his was conducted by OP No.2 and it was found that there was infection in the whole stomach. It was further found that during course of the operation, a vein had been cut from inside and that was the cause of infection. OP No.2 advised the complainant to get treated at the PGI and held out a threat that the former would not give any treatment henceforth to the latter if he disclosed the above facts to anyone. OP No.2 further informed the complainant that latter’s signatures had been obtained on the relevant documentation due to which no harm would come to the former in any eventuality. However, the complainant brought facts to an officer in the employment of OP No.1. Thereafter, Dr. DakshKhurana put a pipe on 06.09.2014 and the infection level came down. Dr. DakshKhurana informed the complainant that the pipe would be removed after a duration of 6 weeks. The complainant was billed for Rs.85569/- before being discharge on 08.09.2014. For purposes of removal of the pipe, the complainant again got hospitalized on 31.10.2014 and was discharged on that very day after the pipe had been removed. He was charged an amount of Rs.9936/- for the taking out of the pipe.
4. The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs with a view to claim compensation for the physical ordeal undergone by him due to the deficiency in service on their part. The averments with regard to deficiency in service pertain to OPs No.1 and 2; while respondents No.3 and 4 are insurers in that behalf.
5. The OPs contested the validity of the averments in the complaint by filing independent written statements.
6. Besides averring that the complainant with estopped by his act and conduct from filing this complaint, the very maintainability of the complaint too was challenged by OP No.1. The averments with regard to any deficiency in service were controverted and it was alleged that the complainant was treated by duly qualified Medical personnel who had excellent academic credentials and had enough experience as well to give that treatment.
7. OP No.2 also denied the allegations pertaining to the averred deficiency in service, besides owning up the averments made in the context by OP No.1. It was further averred that OP No.2 is insured with OP No.3 vide its Professional Indemnity Dr. (Other) Insurance Policy No.041200/46/13/35/00002939 for the period 04.08.2014 to 03.08.2015.
8. OP No.3 challenged the maintainability of the complaint as against it and proceeded to aver that there is no privity of contract between it and the complainant. It was further averred that the complainant may be relegated to the Civil Court as the complaint involves complicated questions of fact and law and would require evidence for adjudication thereof. In the alternative, it was averred that OP No.3 would, in the relevant eventuality of fixture of accountability, be entitle to the benefit of ratable apportionment of liability.
9. OP No.4 also made similar averments. It did concede, on point of fact, that it is the insurer of OP No.1 for liability upto the maximum extent of Rs.8,00,00,000/- in a particular year “with indemnity limit per any one claim limited to maximum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- that too subject to compulsory excess of Rs.1,00,000/- with coverage upto a maximum of 15000 inpatients and 70000 OPD patients having 2500 Nursing and 25 Para Medical Staff”.
10. The complainant did not file a rejoinder.
11. Affidavit Annexure R2/A, alongwith documentation Annexure R2/1 to R2/3 were tendered into evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
12. Affidavit Annexure CA, alongwith documentation Annexure C1 to C6, were tendered into evidence by the complainant.
13. Affidavit Annexure R1/A, alongwith documentation Annexure R1/1 to R1/4, were tendered into evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
14. Affidavit Annexure R3/A alongwith documentation Annexure R3/1 was tendered into evidence on behalf of the Op No.3
15. Affidavit Annexure R4/A alongwith documentation Annexure R4/1 was tendered into evidence on behalf of the Op No.4
16. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record as well by Ld. Counsel during the course of hearing.
17. The complainant deserves to be non-suited. We so conclude after having given our conscious thought to the material available on file. The following observations shall support the view we have obtained.
18. In the course of the written statement, OP No.1 and 2 have provided lot many and elaborate details of the nature of treatment given to the complainant from time to time i.e. as and when he turned up with one complaint or the other. As against it, the complainant opted to refrain from filing a rejoinder. The filing of rejoinder was the only pleadings-based manner on the part of the complainant to challenge the correctness (legal or factual) of the averments made by the OPs in the course of the written statement. The non-filing of a rejoinder validates the drawl of an inference that the complainant was not in a position to challenge the correctness of the averments made in the course of the written statement.
19. Further, it may be pertinently noticed that the OPs No.1 and 2 made a precise averment flawing the complainant for non having indicated what exact treatment/following of procedure was medically required in a such like case which was not followed up in this case. Those averments have not been categorically responded by the complainant who, as already noticed, did not file a rejoinder.
20. The grievance made by the complainant about the existence of certain amount of puss having been found in a wound does not automatically prove any deficiency in the matter of grant of treatment. A medical treatment can be said to be deficient only if it is averred and proved that a particular procedure/line up treatment which was normally followed in such like cases, had not been given/followed. In the absence of any such proof, a complainant cannot be heard to make a grievance about the deficiency in service just because he suffered pain or an infection after discharge from hospital, particularly when it has been averred in this case that the puss was drained out by another doctor in the employment of OP No.1.
21. The age-old adage ‘Men may lie but the circumstances do not, comes to the aid of the OPs in full measure to urge for the deflatement of the case alleged by the complainant. There is the precise averment in the complaint itself that OP No.2 advised him to get treatment from PGI. There is nothing in the complaint to indicate why the complainant did not opt to get treatment at the PGI particularly when it is own version of the complainant that his wife had a quarrel with OP No.2 when the latter (OP No.2) advised further treatment from PGI. In the nature course of things, a similarly circumstance individual would have gone over to the PGI for further treatment if it he was not satisfied with the treatment provided by the Medical personnel at OP No.1. The mere fact that the complainant continued to have treatment at OP No.1 goes a long way prove that he was satisfied with the line and quality of treatment and that he opted to file this complaint only as an after-though.
22. We are of the considered opinion that though any proven deficiency on the part of the Medical personnel in affording treatment to a patient cannot be forgiven, we are equally clear that any attempt to make an allegation of deficiency in service, without there being any foundation in support thereof, would be demeaning to the profession and it would only tend to avoidably put the Medical personnel in awe of a litigation which might affect their concentration in the matter of serving the patient population.
23. We, accordingly, hold that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OP No.1 and 2 in the matter of grant of treatment to the complainant. That being so, the question of an adjudication about the liability of OPs No.3 and 4 does not arise. With these observations, we order the dismissal of the complaint.
24. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

25.05.2015             ANITA KAPOOR              DHARAM PAL                   MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

    

                                 

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                          MEMBER