BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No  64 of 2015

Date of Institution: 27.01.2015

Date of Decision: 18.11.2015

Ghanya Singh alias Sonu S/o Santokh Singh @ Bagicha Singh, r/o VPO Thathgarh, District Tarn Taran

Complainant

Versus

1. Baba Deep Singh Ji Life Care & Super Multispeciality Hospital, Tarn Taran Road, Near Baba Bhuriwala ,Amritsar through its Doctor Incharge
2. Dr.D.S.Chhina, Director Baba Deep  Singh Ji Life Care & Super Multispeciality Hospital, Tarn Taran Road, Near Baba Bhuriwale, Amritsar

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present:    For the Complainant        :         Sh. Ajay Shanker, Advocate.

               For the Opposite Party :    Sh. Munish Kohli,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Ghanya Singh  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that on 7.9.2014 he alongwith Ranjit Kaur wife of Sukhwant Singh and Ranjit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh were going on a motorcycle on 7.9.2014 which met with an accident. In the said accident, complainant and the other two pillion riders suffered injuries and they were admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital . On 8.9.2014 Ranjit  Kaur and Ranjit Singh injured were discharged from the hospital, but the complainant remained admitted. On 8.9.2014 complainant was sent to Dhillon C.T.Scan Centre for scanning by opposite party No.2 . Complainant has alleged that on 11.9.2014  he was discharged from the said hospital. Only medicines, prescription slip were given to him , but no discharge card, reports and bill for the amount of Rs. 30000/- was given to the complainant despite demand. Complainant has further alleged  that the opposite parties had taken Rs. 30000/- from  the complainant. The complainant visited the opposite parties time and again  to issue him the receipt of payment of bill, CT scan report and discharge card, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant suffered pain on the upper part of his left eye and he consulted another doctor, who got scanning of the complainant on 12.9.2014 from Nizzar Scan and Diagnostic Centre and received report on 13.9.2014 which clearly states that there was fracture on the said part of left eye of the complainant. But the opposite party No.2 has not disclosed this fact to the complainant. The complainant is still under treatment of his left eye. Complainant approached the opposite parties  and requested them to refund his amount, but they did not listen to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to  furnish complete details of the amount charged by him and to supply discharge card, CT scan report. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed a joint written version in which it was submitted that  complainant alongwith Ranjit Kaur wife of Sukhwant Singh and Ranjit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh were going on a motorcycle on 7.9.2014 and they were doing triple riding at that time which is strictly against the traffic rules and law. It was submitted that by this illegal act , complainant, Ranjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh met with the accident and brought in the hospital of opposite parties, where they were got admitted. Ranjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh were discharged  on 9.9.2014 . The total medical expenses amounting to Rs. 55000/- were paid by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Kochar with whom the complainant met with an accident. A compromise has also been entered into between the complainant, Ranjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh as one party and Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Kochar as other party in police post “Fatahpur Chowki”. On 8.9.2014 complainant was sent to Dhillon C.T. Scan Centre for scanning as there is evidence of fracture of the lateral wall of the right orbit, lateral wall of the right maxillary sinus and the right zygomatic arch and the concerned doctor advised the complainant that the fracture is conservative and also advised the complainant that it is the option/choice of the complainant, if he wants to get surgery, then opposite parties will provide their services . But the complainant did not show his willingness for his further treatment and rather discharged himself from the hospital on 11.9.2014 and left the hospital against the medical advice i.e. LAMA. The complainant had received all his original record pertaining to the medical treatment, bills, reports of Dhillon CT Scan etc and in the progress note  the complainant has also given his consent of leaving the hospital against the medical advice (LAMA) and thereafter the complainant never approached the opposite parties . It was denied that opposite parties had ever taken Rs. 30000/- from the complainant without issuing bill/receipt. Rather the amount of medical bill of Rs. 55000/- regarding medical treatment of complainant, Ranjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh was paid by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Kochar with whom vehicle accident took place. It was denied that  complainant consulted with any doctor and he got scanning on 12.9.2014 from Nijjar Scan and received report on 13.9.2014 or that the complainant was having any fracture on his part of left eye . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, medical prescription dated 11.9.2014 Ex.C-2, Nijjar Scan report dated 13.9.2014 Ex.C-3, affidavit of Tarsem Singh Ex.C-4, affidavit of Smt.Ranjit Kaur Ex.C-5, affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Singh Ex.C-6, affidavit of Sh.Waryam Singh  Ex.C-7.
4. Opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Singh Sandhu Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of compromise deed Ex.OP1,2/2, affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Kochar Ex.OP1,2/3, affidavit of Sh.R.P.Singh Sandhu Ex.OP1,2/4 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/5 to Ex.OP1,2/20.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant alongwith Ranjit Kaur wife of Sukhwant Singh and Ranjit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh were going on a motorcycle on 7.9.2014 which met with an accident. The complainant and the other two pillion riders suffered injuries and they were admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital . On 8.9.2014 Ranjit  Kaur and Ranjit Singh injured were discharged from the hospital, but the complainant remained admitted. On 8.9.2014 complainant was sent to Dhillon C.T.Scan Centre for scanning by opposite party No.2 , who was treating the complainant. The complainant alleges that on 11.9.2014  complainant was discharged from the said hospital. Only medicines, prescription slip were given to him but no discharge card, reports and bill for the amount of Rs. 30000/- was given to the complainant despite demands. The complainant alleges that the opposite party had taken Rs. 30000/- from  the complainant. The complainant visited the opposite parties time and again  to issue him the receipt of payment of bill, CT scan report and discharge card, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant suffered pain on the upper part of his left eye and he consulted another doctor, who got scanning of the complainant on 12.9.2014 from Nizzar Scan and Diagnostic Centre whose report was received on 13.9.2014 Ex.C-3 which clearly states that there was fracture on the said part of left eye of the complainant. But the opposite party No.2 has not disclosed this fact to the complainant. The complainant is still under treatment of his left eye. The complainant alleges that by not taking proper care in the treatment of the complainant and for not providing documents i.e. discharge card, test report and receipt of Rs. 30000/-, the opposite party is guility of deficiency in service/negligence in medical treatment of the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum. The complainant alongwith Ranjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh were going on a motor cycle on 7.9.2014 while committing offence of triple riding  which is strictly against the traffic rules and law, as a result of which the motorcycle of the complainant met with an accident. The complainant alongwith Ranjit Kaur and  Ranjit Singh were brought to the hospital of opposite party No.1 and they were admitted. Ranjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh were discharged on 9.9.2011 and their medical expenses amounting to Rs. 55000/- were paid by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Kochar. A compromise has also been entered into between complainant, Ranjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh on one side and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Kochar on other side  in the police post Fatahpur Chowki. On 8.9.2014 complainant was sent to Dhillon C.T. Scan Centre for scanning and as per their report dated 8.9.2014 there was evidence of fracture  of the lateral wall of the right orbit, lateral wall of the right maxillary  sinus and the right zygomatic arch and the concerned doctor advised the complainant i.e. Dr. R.P. Singh Sandhu, who medically treated the complainant advised the complainant that it is the option/choice of the complainant  if he wants to get surgery, then the opposite parties will provide their services for the same. But the complainant did not express his willingness for further treatment rather left the hospital of the opposite party against the medical advice i.e. “LAMA” on 11.9.2014 . While going from the hospital, complainant has received all his original record pertaining to medical treatment, bills, report of Dhillon C.T.Scan etc. The complainant has also given his consent of leaving the hospital against the medical advice which is Ex.OP1,2/6A which is duly signed by the complainant and his brother Tarsem Singh. Thereafter complainant never approached the opposite party hospital. The opposite party alleged that the complainant met with an accident  due to his own illegal act of triple riding on two wheeler. Neither the complainant nor the other person on behalf of the complainant paid Rs. 30000/- to the opposite party, so the question of issuing bill/receipt by the opposite party in this regard does not arise. Rather medical bills of Rs. 55000/- regarding medical treatment of complainant , Ranjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh were paid by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Kochar with whose vehicle the motorcycle of the complainant met with an accident. The complainant had already received the discharge card, CT scan report and all other relevant documents from the opposite party and he has given receipt of this record under his own signatures. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that on 7.9.2014 the complainant alongwith other  persons namely Ranjit Kaur and  Ranjit Singh were going on a motorcycle while committing offence of triple riding and they met with an accident with the vehicle of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Kochar, as a result of which the complainant and pillion riders Ranjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh were injured. All the three injured were admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital on the same day i.e. 7.9.2014. Since Ranjit Kaur and  Ranjit Singh suffered minor injuries, as such they were discharged on 9.9.2014. The complainant , who was driving the said motorcycle remained admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital. On 8.9.2014 CT Scan of the complainant was got conducted by the opposite party from  Dhillon C.T. Scan Centre, whose report dated 8.9.2014 shows there is evidence of  fracture of the lateral wall of the right orbit, lateral wall of the right maxillary sinus and the right zygomatic arch. The complainant was apprised of all these facts and he was advised by Dr. R.P.Singh Sandhu, who medically treated the complainant that it is the option/choice of the complainant, if he wants to get surgery and the opposite parties were ready to provide services for the same. But the complainant  did not show his willingness rather he got himself discharged from opposite party No.1 hospital against medical advice i.e. “LAMA” on 11.9.2014 and he received all the original record pertaining to the medical treatment, bills, report of Dhillon C.T.Scan etc. as is evident from the record produced by the complainant himself i.e. document Ex.C-2 dated 11.9.2014 which clearly shows words written “LAMA”(left against medical advice). Written consent given by the complainant Ex.OP1,2/6A fully proves that the complainant received reports as well as other documents from the opposite party. He also got recorded his statement that the complainant is leaving the opposite party hospital with his own consent and if the complainant suffered any problem, he shall be responsible for the same. This written consent Ex.OP1,2/6A is signed by the complainant as well as his brother Tarsem Singh. Even on this consent the words “LAMA” are also written which fully proves that the complainant left the opposite party hospital against  medical advice. It has been held by the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Commission in case Pyarelal  Gupta & Anr. Vs. S.K.Jiwanmal 2005(1) CPJ 758 that where the treatment could not be given as the patient left hospital against medical advice, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are not liable for complications that arose later which led even to her death.
9. In the light of above facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service or any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the treatment of the complainant at opposite party No.1 hospital.
10. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 18.11.2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                   President

/R/                             (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)         (Anoop Sharma)                                                                                                                                                                 Member                            Member