Delhi

West Delhi

CC/11/72

Prabha w/o Rajesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amar Leela Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2017

ORDER

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 01.02.2011

 

Complaint Case. No.72/11                                                                            Date of order :   07.01.2017

In the matter of :-

Prabha w/o Rajesh, R/o 1578A, Ranibagh, Shakur Basti, New Delhi-1100034                                                                                                                             Complainant

Vs.

Amar Leela Hospital, B-1/6, Janak puri, Main Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110058                                                                             Opposite party-1

Dr. Reeta Kohli, Amar Leela Hospital, B-1/6, janak Puri, Main Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110058                                                                      Opposite party -2

           

                                            

           R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

This complaint is filed by Shrimati Prabha named above herein complainant against Amar Leela Hospital and another herein opposite parties for compensation on account of unfair trade practices, deficiency in services and medical negligence by opposite parties.

            The brief relevant facts for disposal of the complaint as stated are that the complainant on 26.04.2010 visited opposite party No. 1. Where she was examined by opposite party No. 2, who advised for USG examination of lower abdomen. The opposite party No.1 from USG report advised the complainant for Cysteetomy/removal of both ovaries as the ovaries of the complainant were enlarged.

            The complainant was admitted in opposite party No.1 on 12.05.2010 and operated by opposite party No.2. She was discharged on 15.05.2010. The complainant spent about Rs. 30,611/- (thirty thousands six hundreds eleven) on treatment. The complainant was continuously feeling severe pain in her lower abdomen, therefore, the complainant visited opposite party No.1 on 21.05.2010. Where she was again examined by the opposite party No.2. She advised some medicines. But pain in  lower abdomen of the

                                                                -2-

complainant persisted, therefore, the complainant in first week of June 2010 again visited the opposite party. The opposite party No.2 refused to examine her and advised to tolerate the pain.

            Thereafter the complainant approached Dr. B.L. Patnaik, who examined her and advised Ultra Sound of lower abdomen. Who on examining the Ultra Sound told the complainant that she has not been properly operated as her both ovaries were enlarged. But the operating doctor removed only left ovary and right ovary has not been completely removed. Which is creating problem. The complainant is taking treatment for the problem created by the opposite parties by not properly operating her. Therefore, no purpose is served and the opposite parties have charged exhaurbitant fee. Hence this act of opposite parties amounts unfair trade practices, deficiency in services and medical negligence. The complainant is suffering on account of unfair trade practices, deficiency in services and medical negligence of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint for direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 26,470/- charged by them for the wrong treatment along with interest @ 24% per annum, Rs. 3841/- expenses on medicines incurred by the complainant and Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and damages caused to the complainant on account of negligence and Rs. 25,000/- of litigation expenses.

            The opposite parties appeared and filed reply of the complaint while raising preliminary objections that the complaint is false, abuse of process of law, concealment of true facts and cause of action. However on merits it is admitted that the complainant was operated in opposite party No.1 by opposite party No.2 as per approved medical standard and precautions. The opposite party No.2 is qualified Surgeon. There is no unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of opposite parties. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed of dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties while controverting stand taken by opposite parties and reiterating her stand taken in the complaint. She again prayed for directions to opposite parties  to pay compensation.

      -3-

When the complainant was asked to lead evidence, the complainant Prabha filed her affidavit dated 16.09.2011, wherein she again narrated  her version and specifically stated that there is unfair trade practices, deficiency in services and medical negligence on the part of opposite parties. She suffered on account of negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices on the part of opposite parties. The complainant in support of her version also relied upon complete treatment record.

The opposite parties in support of their version filed affidavit of Dr. Reeta Kohli opposite party No.2 dated 13.01.2012, wherein she narrated the version of the opposite parties and specifically stated that there is no negligence, deficiency in services and unfair trade practices on the part of opposite parties. The complaint was operated by qualified doctor as per prescribed and approved procedure. Both the parties have also filed written arguments.

We have heard counsel for complainant and Dr Reeta Kohli  and have gone through the material on record. It is worth mentioning here that on request of the complainant treatment record of the complainant was sent to medical superintendent DEEN DAYAL UPADHAYA HOSPiTAL,NEW DELHI for medical expert board Opinion. Who constituted a medical board of three expert doctors. The board gave opinion. The operative part of the opinion is as under:-

“ However it is concluded that the management done by Dr. Rita Kohli at Amarleela Hospital was right and appropriate.”

From the bare reading of the report of medical expert board it is evident that there was no medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The doctor adopted proper procedure for treatment of the complainant.

The complainant to prove medical negligence on the part of opposite parties has submitted her affidavit only. The complainant in the complaint and her affidavit alleged deficiency in services, unfair trade practices and  medical negligence of the opposite parties. Except affidavit of the

   -4-

complainant there is no evidence or material showing medical negligence unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The affidavit of the complainant is rebutted by affidavit of Dr. Rita Kohli. Who has specifically stated that operation of complainant was performed by qualified surgeon as per standard medical practices with full care and precautions.

The burden of proof that the opposite parties were negligent is on complainant. It is not for the opposite parties to show that they were not negligent and in cases of professional negligence higher standard of proof than ordinary civil cases of negligence is required. We are followed by 2003(1)CPR 356 (NC), 2006 (II) CPJ 348 NC Saleemuddin Vs Dr Sunil Malhotra,  2006 (III) CPJ 345 Jai Shankar Prasad Vs Dr Bhupinder Singh (MS),  2006 (IV) CPJ 182 Prabha Shankar Vs Narayan Hrudalyala and 2006 (II) CPJ 80 NC B. Anthony Raj Vs Shri Thomas hospital.

It is also settled law-that lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day , he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the respondent followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient, a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. 

In the present case there is no material and evidence of medical negligence, unfair trade practices and deficiency in services on behalf of complainant. Therefore in absence of any cogent and convincing material and evidence on behalf of complainant, she failed to prove medical negligence, unfair trade practices and deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.

      -5-

Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint. Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.     

Order pronounced on  : 07.01.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                     (URMILA GUPTA)                                     ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                                    MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT