Manjit Kaur complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that opposite parties be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to her for unnecessary harassment, physical pain and mental agony suffered by her and also due to medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that she was suffering from
stomach pain and went for ultrasound scan of abdoman from Walia Diagnostic Centre, Shastri Nagar, Jalandhar Road, Batala and Dr.Gurmeet Singh gave his report on 25.08.2016that “Gall bladder is well distended and its wall thickness is normal, multiple stones of different sizes are seen in its lumen” Due to this report she had taken some treatment from different doctors and she could be ready for operation for the time being. After some time she again remained suffering from stomach pain and went for ultra sound scan of abdomen from hKS Charitable Hospital, Harchowal, Road, Qadian, Distt.Gurdaspur and Dr.Balcharanjit Singh Bhatia and Dr.(Mrs.) Adarsh R.K.Singh, MD (Radiology) had given the report on 19.9.2016 that “Gal bladder shows normal physiological distention and normal wall thickness, multiple calculus largest being 5 mm calculus seen within the lumen. No pericholecystic lucency seen” On 23March 2017, she was suffering from stomach pain and Dr.Subash Attari referred her for ultra sound scan of abdomen to Dr.Rajneesh Arora on 23 March, 2017 and she alongwith her son came to Arora Diagnostic Centre for ultrasound scan and Dr.Diagnosed her and gave his report. After conducting the Ultra sound scanning Dr.Rajneesh Arora gave his report and said to them that it is very serious case and two operations have to be done as stones have gone from Gall bladder to the pipe. Said Doctor advised and pressurized her son to admit the patient in the hospital i.e. Arora Hospital, Gurdaspur which is being run by his wife and deposit the cost of two operation in the said hospital i.e. Rs.50,000/-. After knowing about the opinion of said doctor a doubt arose in her mind and her son that previous reports are showing stones only in Gall bladder but the present report of Dr.Arora is showing that there is a calculus in the pipe also and two operations have to be done, whereas the previous reports of Dr.Walia and hKS Charitable Hospital opined that only one operation is to be needed that is only of Gall Bladder. Due to hearing of two operations from Dr.Rajneesh Arora, she became more serious and on next day i.e. 24.3.2017 went to S.G.L. Charitable Hospital managed by Baba Kashmira Singh Jan Sewa Trust village Mustafabad, P.O. Subhanpur, G.T.Road, Distt.Kapurthala and Dr.Vijay Manochanda, MD Radiologist given his report of ultra sonography of Abdomen of patient Manjit Kaur referred by Dr.Lalan Mishra. After obtaining the reports, the doctor advised her for only one operation of Gall bladder and operation was done by the doctors. She has next pleaded that Dr.Rajneesh Arora has given a wrong Ultra Scan report to her and also wrong advice given to her for two operations from their own hospital. The opposite party no.1 has played fraud and cheating with her. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party
no.1 has appeared and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint does not lie, because there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 and the present complaint is based on false and baseless allegations and that too without any evidence or substance in it and the present complaint is not maintainable on the issue of joinder and mis-joinder. On merits, it was admitted that case of the complainant that she was suffering from stones in her Gall Bladder and due to that reason she approached the opposite party no.1 for Ultra Sonography and the correct report was given, but even then the present complaint is being filed on two grounds:-
- First that the opposite party has given wrong ultra sound scan report and second she has said that she was wrongly advised for two operations from the hospital of opposite party whereas both the two grounds are not correct. The plea of wrong report is taken only on the basis that it was wrongly reported regarding the stone in pipe, actually when the complainant approached opposite party at that time she was suffering from pain in abdomen area and the stone was also found in her “common Bile Duct” (CBD) and accordingly it was reported and the main grounds of complainant is that when later on she was operated there was no stone in the CBD/pipe. However, it is clear that the small size stone which was there in the CBD had already passed and through various studies it has been established that there is nothing wrong in passing of such type of stones from CBD.
- It was further submitted that the 2nd ground which has been taken by the complainant regarding that the opposite party referred her to his hospital is also wrong and baseless allegation. The opposite party is MD (Radio-Diagnosis) and in his centre there is no scope for such type of operations and the opposite party no.2 of Arora Hospital is MD in medicine and there are only other two doctor there out of them one namely Payal Arora is also in medicine and second doctor is Dr.Rajan Arora is eye specialist, therefore, there was no reason at all on the part of opposite party no.1 to refer complainant his centre or Arora Hospital. The complainant has just leveled false and baselesss allegation without any basis only due to the reason that the Dr.at Arora Hospital are relative to opposite party no.1.
The present complaint is not maintainable on the issue of joinder and mis-joinder. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.
4. Opposite party 2 has appeared and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the opposite party has no connection with matter in question in any manner and she has been made party to the present complaint without any cause and reason, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. The complainant never remained patient of opposite party no.2 as indoor or outdoor patient and rather she had never even been examined by her, as such there is no relation between complainant and opposite party which falls within the preview of consumer protection Act. On merits, all averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Opposite party no.3 appeared and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable against opposite party no.3, because there is no contract of insurance of liability. The insurance company has insured only Dr.Rajnish Arora MD through professional indemnity Doctors policy and neither Arora Diagnostic Centre nor Dr.Vandna Arora is insured by the opposite party no.3. Hence no liability whatsoever can be fastened on opposite party no.3. On merits, all averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Counsel for the ccomplainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
7. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.Rajnish Arora Ex.OP-1/1, alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/5 and closed the evidence.
8. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.Vandana Arora Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence.
9. Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jodh Singh Officiating Branch Manager Ex.OP-3/1 alongwith copy of policy Ex.OP-3/2 and closed the evidence.
10. 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 OP1’s and other diagnostic reports/ observations (Ex.C2 to Ex.6) 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 titled OP’s part also with the assistance of her surgery records and medical treatment at her chosen final Hospital at Kapurthala and whose surgeon did not find/ mention any failings in the medical-diagnosis as meted out to her at the OP1 Diagnostic Centre, at the hands of the OP1 Doctor. It has been unfortunate that the complainant had enjoined the OP2 Doctor and her owned Hospital simply on account of her (OP2) being the spouse of the OP1 doctor otherwise the complainant was never admitted to the OP2 Hospital nor it (the hospital) had the general-surgery facility for removal of the gall bladder and the present complainant has filed the present complaint out of her personal sorrow but somehow, could not establish any statutory deficiency in the OP1’s diagnosis to get a favorable award, under the adjudicating Act.
11. We further find and are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish her allegations/ charges against the OP Doctors/ Hospital who have duly proved their medical rebuttal by producing relevant excerpts from the medical journal(s). All the exhibited evidentiary reports confirm the presence of ‘calculus/ stones’ in the gall-bladder of the complainant and that had to be operated subsequently to get rid of the same on permanent basis.
12. 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. Somehow, it has not been in anyway proved on records that the opinion/ reports 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 party doctors 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 reports were provided to the complainant.
13. Finally, in the light of the all above, we do not see any actionable statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal, with no orders as to its costs.
14 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)
JULY 02,2018. Member
*MK*
