CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.187/2011

SH. PRAKASH

S/O SH. BHOLA RAM

WARD NO.11, BADA BAZAR,

PATAUDI DISTRICT,

GURGAON, HARYANA

                                             …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                           

Vs

BATRA HOSPITAL

THROUGH DR. M. SHARMA, MEDICAL DIRECTOR

BATRA HOSPITAL,

1, TUGHLAKABAD INSTITUTIONAL AREA,

MEHRAULI BADARPUR ROAD,

NEW DELHI-100062

                                                          …………..RESPONDENT

Date of Order: 22.01.2019

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

            The complainant herein, Shri Prakash, has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against Batra Hospital, the OP, submitting that the complainant is the son of Shri Bhola Ram (Admission No.3078866), who was a patient of the OP and was stated to be suffering from a rectum disease and went to the OP hospital for treatment of the said disease, and was admitted on 15.10.2010.  It is further submitted that after his admission, Dr. Sudip Raina advised the complainant that a minor operation is required to be made and expenditure of all the treatment including medicines, operation, boarding and other charges would amount to approximately Rs.80,000/-.  It is submitted that since the complainant is a very poor person and a daily wages worker in his native place Pataudi, after the assurance of his relatives regarding operation, expenditure, the complainant gave the consent for operation.  Dr. Rana conducted surgery of rectum of the father of the complainant, and on 26.10.2010, the patient was discharged and the complainant paid Rs.2 lakhs to the OP and thereafter, when the complainant along with his father went again to hospital for opening the stitches, they were shocked to have been informed that the bag for stool would remain attached to the patient for the rest of his  life, whereas Dr. Raina, according to the complainant, had assured them before the operation that they would remove the bag after 15 days but it was no removed as assured.  The complainant further submits that his father/patient was in a very critical condition and remained in mental and physical tension, and felt uncomfortable due to the said stool bag and would always think about committing suicide.  

            The complainant further alleges that the doctor never disclosed the real facts of the treatment which was his professional and ethical duty and thus are responsible for the wrong treatment; and that when the complainant contacted the Medical Director for refund of the excess money charged by the OP, vide letter dated 24.11.2010, but his request was turned down, which according to the complainant is a deficiency in service.  The complainant has prayed that the OP might be directed to refund Rs.2 lakhs with penal interest for deficiency in service and the mental and physical agony apart from the litigation costs.

            In its written statement, OP-1 submitted that since there is no cause of action nor is there any unfair trade practice, the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  It is submitted that the father of the complaint was suffering from cancer of the anal canal for over one year and had visited a number of doctors during that period  and had avoided definitive treatment.  When he was first  seen in the OPD, he was not only actively bleeding from his anus but was also unable to properly control  his stools.  He was given an estimate of Rs.80000/- to Rs.90000/- in the general ward category, and all estimates given exclude the cost of medicines, but the complainant’s father chose to get admitted in private room where the costs are much higher, and that due to his chronic conditions, he was required to stay longer in the hospital, but the final bill was not challenged by the complainant’s family and thus there was no case of any overcharging.   It is submitted that there was no alternative but to remove the rectum and create a colostomy and that was stated to have been done after fully explaining to the patient and his family, and they did not object to the same.   It is submitted by the OP that at no point of time, it was informed that the colostomy can be temporary and reversible as that is medical not possible.  It is further submitted that there was no medical negligence or rashness in the present case. 

            The complainant filed rejoinder as well, and denied the contents of the written statement as wrong and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the complaint.  It is further submitted that since there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice also on the part of the OP, the complaint might be allowed and the relief prayed might be granted.

            During the pendency of the complaint, the OP filed an application under Section 13(4 & 5) of the Act, praying that the matter might be referred for an independent expert opinion, to a specialized hospital or by constituting a medical board.  In view of the prayer of the OP in the aforesaid application which was neither replied to nor opposed, this Forum made a reference to the Medical Superintendent Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, vide orders dated 25.10.2013, for constituting a Committee for expert opinion. All the requisite documents were ordered to be supplied to the said hospital.   Finally, the expert opinion of the Medical Board was received vide letter no.2-19/16-17-MR dated 9.9.2017, as recorded in the orders dated 30.11.2017, whereby the Board was opinion that slides and blocks of surgical excised specimen were required for review by Pathology Department of VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital.  Thereafter vide letter/Medical Opinion Report no.2-19/18-MR dated 18.1.2018, the MS of the VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi,  informed as under:-

“The Medical Board was held on 18.01.2018 under the chairmanship of Dr. R.K. Anand, Addl. Medical Superintendent & Chairman.  The medical records in the above mentioned case were evaluated.  On the basis of available relevant documents, the Board is of the opinion that there is no negligence in treatment on the part of the hospital or treating doctor.  The treatment has been carried out as per standard guidelines.”

We have gone through the case file carefully.

In fact the complainant is not a consumer.  He has not hired the services from OP.  He has not paid any consideration to OP nor is he the beneficiary of the services.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. 

Even otherwise on merit, the complainant has failed to prove any medical negligence on the part of OP.  The matter was referred to the Medical Board, Safdarjung Hospital and the Medical Board, Safdarjung Hospital gave its opinion which is as under:-

“The Medical Board was held on 18.01.2018 under the chairmanship of Dr. R.K. Anand, Addl. Medical Superintendent & Chairman.  The medical records in the above mentioned case were evaluated.  On the basis of available relevant documents, the Board is of the opinion that there is no negligence in treatment on the part of the hospital or treating doctor.  The treatment has been carried out as per standard guidelines.”

No case of deficiency is made out against OP.  The complaint is dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

         (H.C. SURI)                                                                  (A.S. YADAV)

           MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT