O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1. Claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the opposite party alleging deficiency of service the complainant who is a Police Constable by Profession filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
2. The allegations in the complaint in brief are that he along with other constables basing on the directions of his superiors attended the opposite party hospital for medical check up on 14.12.2010. The doctors there conducted various tests. The opposite party hospital consultant physician and Dr. B. Manohar Prasad, after perusing the reports informed the complainant that his health position was bad and he had high level sugar and prescribed GLUCONORM medicine. He also directed the complainant to join their hospital without delay for undergoing operation for removal of stones in his kidneys besides infection.
3. Because of the medical opinion of opposite party hospital the complainant and family member had no sleep for two days. The complainant had no vices. As suggested by family members he underwent tests for 2nd opinion on 17th, 18th and 21st December, 2010 in Sai Sudha Hospital, Kakinada, Swarna Diagnostics, Kakinada and Kakinada Emergency Hospital Liver and Gastro Care Unit Liposcution Centre by spending amounts. The doctors there expressed their opinion that the complainant was hale and healthy and there was no need of any surgery and his blood sugar and urine sugar were also normal and doctor directed him not to consumer any medicines.
4. Thus according to the complainant the opinion furnished by the doctors of opposite party hospital caused mental agony and the opinion was based on incorrect reports and thus there is deficiency of service on the part of doctors and opposite party hospital. Hence he is entitled for compensation of Rs. 4.,00,000/- and deficiency of service for mental agony. He got issued lawyer’s notice. Though received the same the opposite party did not respond.
5 The opposite party filed its written version denying the material allegations in the complaint and further according to them the doctors of their hospital conducted some tests including sugar and kidneys but Dr. Manohar Prasad did not inform the health condition of the complainant as bad and did not direct him to join their hospital for operation. Further according to them the 4mm stone in the kidney can pass through urine if plenty of water or fluids are taken. The concerned doctor of opposite party after perusing blood test, the sugar levels of the complainant might have suggested Gluconorm medicine. Further according to the opposite party the sugar levels will be decreased if under gone blood test for sugar after taking Gluconorm medicine. Thus it can’t be ruled out the complainant after taking the said medicine under gone the medical test for blood sugar and as such the reports show that the sugar levels are normal. Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part. Thus contending they sought dismissal of the complaint.
6 Now the points for determination are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party as claimed by the complainant?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amount as sought by him?
- To what relief?
7. Point No.1: To buttress his contention the complainant furnished his chief affidavit and exhibited Ex.A1 medical reports given by the opposite party hospital, Ex.A2 medical report given by Sai Sudha Hospital, Kakinada, Ex.A3 report given by Kakinada Emergency Hospital Liver and Gastro Care Unit Liposuction Center, Kakinada, Ex.A4 report given by Swarna Diagnostics, Kakinada, Ex.A5 office copy of lawyer’s notice and Ex.A6 postal acknowledgment of opposite party.
8 As against this evidence Dr. B. Manohar Prasad against whom the complainant leveled allegations of deficiency of service furnished his proof affidavit and through him exhibited Ex.B1 the medical report of the complainant is marked.
9 The main grievance of the complainant is that when he underwent medical tests for second opinion pertaining to his sugar levels and also stones alleged have been found in the kidneys by the opposite party, it was found that he was hale and healthy and there was no need of surgery as suggested by the doctors of opposite party. On other hand the stand taken by the opposite party is that the 4mm stone found in the kidney can pass through the urine if plenty of water is taken and blood sugar levels will decreased it Gluconorm medicine is consumed. Here it may be pointed out that as seen from the reports furnished by the opposite party they have not suggested any surgery and directed the complainant join their hospital without any delay as claimed by the complainant. Even for the questionnaire submitted by the opposite party the complainant answered that the doctors of opposite party orally informed him. Thus there is no document suggesting surgery for removal stone from kidney of the complaint.
10 Here it may be mentioned that though the complainant exhibited Exs.A2 to A4 the medical reports furnished by other hospital, admittedly the complainant has not produced affidavits of those doctors who examined and furnished those reports. In this regard the learned counsel for opposite party invited attention of this Forum to a ruling in Mostt. Rajwati Devi and another Petitioners v. The Joint Director, Consolidation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna and others, Respondents. AIR 1989 PATNA 66 for the proposition that documents do not prove themselves unless the concerned witness were examined for proving the same. The documents upon which reliance is placed must be brought on record legally. In this on hand also though the complainant filed the reports of doctors of other hospitals they were not proved by filing their affidavits. Hence under these circumstances no reliance can be placed on exhibits A2 to A4. Further more there is no indication either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit of the complainant that he has shown the reports of opposite party to the other doctors who conducted various tests for 2nd opinion. On the face of denial by Dr. Manohar Prasad who furnished his affidavit on behalf of opposite party denying or disputing the correctness of exhibits A2 to A4 the complainant could not produce affidavits of concerned doctors to establish their correctness. Hence under these circumstances there is no legally acceptable evidence to suggest there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this point is answered against the complainant and in favour of the opposite party.
11 Point No.2: In view of the finding rendered under point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any amount. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 09th day of March, 2015.
Sd/-xxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:
PW1: Sri Nalagari Krishnamurthy [complainant]
For opposite party:
RW1: Dr. Manohar Prasad, Apollo Hospital, Kakinada
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Medical reports given by the opposite party hospital
Ex.A2 Medical report given by Sai Sudha Hospital, Kakinada
Ex.A3 Medical report given by Kakinada Emergency Hospital Liver and Gastro Care Unit Liposuction Center, Kakinada
Ex.A4 Medical report given by Swarna Diagnostics, Kakinada,
Ex.A5 12.01.2011 Office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A6 Postal acknowledgment of opposite party.
For opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Medical report of the complainant
Sd/-xxxxx Sd/-xxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
