1        The complainant Pargat Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called   as 'the Act') against Balbir Singh Vaid, Dr. Ranjit Singh son of Balbir Singh Vaid, Satguru Dwakhana, situated at Baba Chakki Wala, near Bittu Photo Studio, G.T. Road, Nausherra Pannuan, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran (Opposite parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to repay the fees of Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties  and to pay Rs. 30,680/- spent by the complainant for treatment of his injured leg and Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is an illiterate and poor person and was doing the labour work on daily wages. The opposite parties are running Satguru Dwakhana at village Nausherra Pannuan. The right leg of the complainant got fractured in an accident on 21.9.2015. The complainant approached the opposite parties for treatment of his fractured leg. The opposite parties attended the complainant and assured the complainant that they will do treatment of his leg and same will heal in a month or two. The complainant relied upon the opposite parties and started his treatment from opposite parties. The opposite parties also stated that there is no need of X-ray report of the leg of the complainant. The opposite parties tied the fractured leg of the complainant with bandage and gave medicines and also asked for rest. The complainant followed the instructions of opposite parties and took medicine, took rest. The opposite parties repeatedly done bandage on the fractured leg of the complainant after every 15 days but the leg was not healed. The complainant suffered from pain and restlessness during this period. The complainant stated the opposite parties that his leg was not healed but the opposite parties stated that due to his age factor healing is slow.  On 17.2.2016, the complainant consulted Dr. G.S. Aulakh, at Aulakh Bone and Joint Centre, Tarn Taran where the doctor got the X-ray of fractured leg of the complainant from Punjab Ultra Sound and X-ray Tarn Taran and doctor after going through the X-ray film and report stated that leg was fractured and asked the complainant to take medicine for some days then he will operate the leg as there was swelling on the leg. Then, the complainant got operated his leg from Guru Nanak Dev Super-specialty Hospital, Tarn Taran and rod was affixed alognwith bone of the leg of the complainant. The complainant after operation visited the opposite parties and showed them X-ray films and reports of the fractured leg of the complainant before and after operation but the opposite parties instead of admitting of their negligence in treatment and mistake stated that the X-ray report of pre-operation is not correct and also stated that there was no need of operation and to affix rod in the leg.  The complainant regularly visited the opposite parties for treatment of his fractured leg since the date of accident till 17.2.2016 but due to negligence on the part of opposite parties the fractured leg of the complainant could not heal and condition of his injured leg become deteriorated and only after the consultation with the doctors at Tarn Taran got operated his injured leg from Guru Nanak Dev Hospital Tarn Taran and spent huge amount of Rs. 30,680/- for treatment of his injured leg and suffered a pain for about 5 months and opposite parties also charged their fee amounting to Rs. 10,000/- on various visits. The complainant is a labourer and the opposite parties harassed the complainant for about 5 months and complainant till today failed to earn livelihood. The complainant has suffered and is still suffering from pain, harassment, mental agony or depression due to medical negligence of opposite parties. Hence complaint was filed.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The complaint is barred by law of limitation; that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as nowhere in the complaint, the complainant has mentioned his age and has mentioned himself as illiterate labourer and has not disclosed anything about his place of work. The complainant has concealed about the places from where, he had got treatment before approaching the opposite parties. The complainant has forged a letter head by putting a date by himself to involve the opposite parties in the present complaint which is very much evident from the hand-writing in the prescription slip which has been placed on record by the complainant. Moreover, the supplements described by the opposite parties are not medicines but are some forms of diet/ supplement which can be prescribed for providing strength to the bone. The complainant has filed the present complaint without the time and date of occurring of case of action and is liable to be dismissed in this score and without a cause of action. No remedy can be availed in any consumer Forum or any court of law. Moreover, nothing is there in the complaint to prove that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties. On merits, it is pleaded that the opposite parties told the complainant that as he had already got treatment from various professional of the line, it is the chances of bone to heal and join are very dim, moreover, the opposite parties also told the complainant that his injury has deteriorated due to non-precipitation and wrong treatment and as such, the chances of recovery are dim but still the complainant told the opposite parties to do something and rest will be his fortune, so the opposite parties intended the complainant on his assistance. The complainant has not mentioned the date on which he approached the opposite parties which proves the case of the opposite parties and defects the case of the complainant. The complainant has concealed the date of approaching the opposite party so as to cover the gap from the date of fracture and in between. The date of the accident and fracture in the complaint is mentioned as 17.2.2016 whereas in Para No. 2 of the complaint the date of fracture and accident on 21.9.2015 and as such, it is a major contradiction of the date of alleged accident and fracture which creates the doubts in the case of complainant. The complainant had approached the opposite party after long gap between the suffering of injury as he had consulted and visited a number of other experts and orthopedics in between approaching the opposite party, when the complainant approached the opposite parties his case of fractured leg had already become non curable by mean available and all the other allegations in the complaint have been denied by the opposite parties and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4        In order to prove their case, the Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Pargat Singh complainant Ex. C-1, affidavit of Hari Singh Ex. C-2, affidavit of Kulwinder Singh Ex. C-3  alongwith documents Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-25 and closed evidence and thereafter Ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Balbir Singh Ex. OP/1, affidavit of Gurlal Singh Ex. OP. 1,2/2 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

6        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite parties are running Satguru Dwakhana at village Nausherra Pannuan. The right leg of the complainant got fractured in an accident on 21.9.2015. The complainant approached the opposite parties for treatment of his fractured leg. It is further contended that the opposite parties attended the complainant and assured the complainant that they will do treatment of his leg and same will heal in a month or two. The complainant relied upon the opposite parties and started his treatment from opposite parties. The opposite parties also stated that there is no need of X-ray report of the leg of the complainant. The opposite parties tied the fractured leg of the complainant with bandage and gave medicines and also asked for rest. The complainant followed the instructions of opposite parties and took medicine, took rest. It is also contended that the opposite parties repeatedly done bandage on the fractured leg of the complainant after every 15 days but the leg was not healed. The complainant suffered from pain and restlessness during this period. The complainant stated the opposite parties that his leg was not healed but the opposite parties stated that due to his age factor healing is slow.  It is also contended that on 17.2.2016, the complainant consulted Dr. G.S. Aulakh, at Aulakh Bone and Joint Centre, Tarn Taran where the doctor got the X-ray of fractured leg of the complainant from Punjab Ultra Sound and X-ray Tarn Taran and doctor after going through the X-ray film and report stated that leg was fractured and asked the complainant to take medicine for some days then he will operate the leg as there was swelling on the leg. It is also contended that  the complainant got operated his leg from Guru Nanak Dev Super-specialty Hospital, Tarn Taran and rod was affixed alognwith bone of the leg of the complainant. It is also contended that the complainant after operation visited the opposite parties and showed them X-ray films and reports of the fractured leg of the complainant before and after operation but the opposite parties instead of admitting of their negligence in treatment and mistake stated that the X-ray report of pre-operation is not correct and also stated that there was no need of operation and to affix rod in the leg.  It is also contended that the complainant regularly visited the opposite parties for treatment of his fractured leg since the date of accident till 17.2.2016. But due to negligence on the part of opposite parties, the fractured leg of the complainant could not heal and condition of his injured leg become deteriorated. Only after the consultation with the doctors at Tarn Taran the complainant got operated his injured leg from Guru Nanak Dev Hospital Tarn Taran. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite parties is not having any knowledge of the particular system of medicine but practices in that system and due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered a lot. In support of his case, the complainant has also relied upon 1996(1) Apex Court Journal 545(S.C) Poonam Verma Vs Ashwin Patel and Others. It is also contended that the complainant spent an amount of Rs. 30,680/- for treatment of his injured leg and suffered a pain for about 5 months. The opposite parties also charged their fee amounting to Rs. 10,000/- on various visits. The complainant is a labourer and the opposite parties harassed the complainant for about 5 months and complainant till today failed to earn his livelihood. The complainant has suffered and is still suffering from pain, harassment, mental agony or depression due to medical negligence of opposite parties and Ld. counsel for the complainant prayed that the present complaint may be allowed as prayed for in the complaint.

7        On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The complaint is barred by law of limitation. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as nowhere in the complaint, the complainant has mentioned his age and has mentioned himself as illiterate labourer and has not disclosed anything about his place of work. The complainant has concealed about the places from where, he had got treatment before approaching the opposite parties. The complainant has forged a letter head by putting a date by himself to involve the opposite parties in the present complaint which is very much evident from the hand-writing in the prescription slip which has been placed on record by the complainant. Moreover, the supplements described by the opposite parties are not medicines but are some forms of diet/ supplement which can be prescribed for providing strength to the bone. The complainant has filed the present complaint without the time and date of occurring of case of action and is liable to be dismissed in this score and without a cause of action. No remedy can be availed in any Consumer Forum or any Court of law. Moreover, nothing is there in the complaint to prove that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties. It is further contended by Ld. counsel for the opposite parties  that the complainant that as he had already got treatment from various professional of the line, it is the chances of bone to heal and join are very dim, moreover, the opposite parties also told the complainant that his injury has deteriorated due to non-precipitation and wrong treatment and as such, the chances of recovery are dim but still the complainant told the opposite parties to do something and rest will be his fortune, so the opposite parties intended the complainant on his assistance. The complainant has not mentioned the date on which he approached the opposite parties which proves the case of the opposite parties and defects the case of the complainant. The complainant has concealed the date of approaching the opposite party so as to cover the gap from the date of fracture and in between. The date of the accident and fracture in the complaint is mentioned as 17.2.2016 whereas in Para No. 2 of the complaint the date of fracture and accident on 21.9.2015 and as such, it is a major contradiction of the date of accident and fracture which creates the doubts in the case of complainant. It is further contended that the complainant had approached the opposite party after long gap between the suffering of injury as he had consulted and visited a number of other experts and orthopedics in between approaching the opposite party, when the complainant approached the opposite parties his case of fractured leg had already become non curable by mean available and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8        We have carefully gone through the contentions of Ld. counsel for the parties.

9        It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite parties are running a Dwakhana under the name and style of Satguru Dwakhna situated at Baba Chackki Wala near Bittu Photostat Studio, G.T. Road Naushehra Pannuan Tehsil and District Tarn Taran and the complainant approached to the opposite parties for his treatment. The complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of Hari Singh so of Pritam Singh resident of village Mughal Chack Pannuan Tehsil and District tarn Taran as Ex. C-2 and he has stated in his affidavit that he alongwith son of complainant Kulwinder Singh took the complainant to the opposite parties for treatment of fractured leg of the complainant and the opposite parties attended the complainant and assured them that the opposite parties will do the treatment of his leg and same will heal in a month or two and they relied upon the opposite parties. The opposite parties stated that there is no need of X ray report of the leg of the complainant.  The opposite parties tied the fractured leg of the complainant with bandage and also gave medicines and asked for rest. The complainant followed the instructions of opposite parties, took medicine and took rest. It is also in his affidavit that the opposite parties repeatedly done bandage on the fractured leg of the complainant after 15 days but the leg was not healed and the opposite parties stated that due to age factor of the complainant healing is slow. It is also in his affidavit that on the consultation of Dr. G.S. Aulakh, Aulakh Bone and Joint Centre, Tarn Taran the complainant got the X-ray of his fractured leg from Punjab Ultra Sound and X-ray Tarn Taran and took medicine for some days and then the complainant got operated his leg from Guru Nanak Dev Super-specialty Hospital, Tarn Taran and rod was affixed alongwith bone  of the leg of the complainant. After operation the complainant visited the opposite parties and showed them X ray firms and reports of fractured leg of the complainant before and after operation. But the opposite parties did not admit their negligence in the treatment and mistake and stated that X-ray report of pre operation is not correct and stated that there was no need of operation and affix rod in the leg. It is also in his affidavit that the complainant regularly visited the opposite parties for his fractured leg since the date of accident till 17.2.2016 but due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the fractured leg of the complainant could not heal and condition of his injured leg become deteriorated and only after the consultation with the doctors at Tarn Taran got operated his injured leg from the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital Tarn Taran. It is also in his affidavit that the complainant has spent amount of Rs. 30,6780/- on treatment of his injured leg and suffered pain for about 5 months and opposite parties charged their fee amounting to Rs. 10,000/-.  The complainant has also tendered affidavit of Kulwinder Singh son of Pargat Singh resident of village Mugal Chak Pannuan Tehsil and district Tarn Taran Ex. C-3 and has stated in his affidavit that he alongwith his uncle Hari Singh took the complainant to the opposite parties for treatment of fractured leg of the complainant and has also reiterated the whole facts as stated in the affidavit of   Hari Singh Ex. C-3.  To prove his case, the complainant has also placed on record prescription slip of Aulakh Bone and Joint Centre Ex. C-5,  Discharge Card of Guru Nanak Dev Super Specialty Hospital  Goindwal Sahib Road, Tarn Taran Ex. C-8, C-9, detail of medicines etc. Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-21. The complainant has also placed on record prescription issued by the opposite party Ex. C-22 which is on the letter head of the opposite parties. On the other hands, the opposite party has denied the case of the complainant and has stated that that before approaching he opposite parties, the complainant has get the treatment from other practitioners but the opposite party has not brought even single document proving that the complainant had consulted and visited a number of other expert and orthopedics before approaching the opposite parties. The opposite parties have also placed on record one affidavit of Gurlal Singh son of Sukhwinder Singh resident of village Kheda Tehsil and District Tarn Taran Ex. OPs 1,2/2 in which he stated that he pleaded that clinic of Vaid Balbir Singh is situated in the market of village Naushehra Pannuan, the also stated in his affidavit that the complainant approached the opposite party of his fractured limb in accident. It is also in his affidavit that Balbir Singh told the patient/complainant in his presence that the case has deteriorated and due to old age of the patient there are very less chances that he will recover and fracture will heal and get joint and he also told the patient that he should approach some orthopedic for his treatment and it is also in his affidavit that on compelling by the patient, Vaid Balbir Singh had to provide his services, so he gave some treatment in his presence. But the written version is contrary to the evidence of Gurlal Singh, as Opposite Party has nowhere advised the complainant to approach the orthopedic for his treatment. Moreover, the opposite party has also pleaded in the written version that the complainant has forged a letter head of opposite parties by putting a date by himself to involve the opposite parties in the present complaint. But the opposite parties have not placed on record any document showing that the opposite parties have taken any step against the complainant for committing forgery in the letter head of the opposite parties. It all creates doubt in the stand taken by the opposite parties in the present case. As per Judgment 1996(1) Apex Court Journal 545(S.C) Poonam Verma Vs Ashwin Patel and Others, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a person who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that system is a quack. The opposite parties have also failed to prove on record any document showing the knowledge of a particular system of medicine.  The complainant is not entitled to receive Rs. 30,680/- from the opposite parties  because the said amount is treatment amount which has been born by the complainant on his treatment from the other hospital and this is not liability of the opposite parties.

10      In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby partly allowed with costs in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties are directed to repay the fee paid by the complainant amounting to Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only). The complainant is also entitled to Rs.10,000 /- (Rs. Ten thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 5,000/- (Five thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.