Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/319

Amarjit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chauhan Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.Mangat

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No. 319 of 2011

 

                                                Date of Institution: 06.02.2011.

                             Date of Decision  : 05.02.2015.

 

Amarjit son of Bui Lal, resident of village Naushehra Khurd, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur.

                                                     …..Appellant/complainant.

Versus

 

1.       Chauhan Hospital, A Multi Specialty Centre, Dina Nagar, Tehsil and    District Gurdaspur through its Propprietor/owner Dr. Daljit Chauhan.

2.       United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 54 Janpat, Connaught Place, New      Delhi through its Executive Officer.

                                                     ….Respondents/opposite parties

    

Appeal against order dated 24.06.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.   

Present:-

 

     For the appellant             :     None

For the respondents        :     Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                 

                    The appellant (Complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against order dated 24.06.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gurdaspur, (in short, “the District Forum”), dismissing his complaint in favour of the respondents of this appeal (OPs in the complaint).

 

2.           The complainant Amarjit Singh has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the "Act") against the OPs on the allegations that he suffered abdominal pain on the night of 19.11.2007 and  on 20.11.2007 and he was medically checked up by OP No.1 hospital through Dr. Daljit Singh Chauhan. The complainant was advised for ultra sound test for the same, which was conducted at the hospital of OP No.1. It was revealed therein that there is a stone in kidney of the complainant. The complainant was assured by the OP No.1 for the removal of the stone with the aid of the medicines. The complainant accordingly took the medicines. On 17.06.2008, ultra sound of the complainant was again conducted and it was assured by OP No.1 that stone would be removed with the assistance of medicines. The complainant complained of abdominal pain and he approached OP No.1 on 12.07.2008 and again underwent ultra sound test on 12.07.2008. OP No.1 informed the complainant that stone (Calculus) has not been removed from the kidney and hence operation was necessitated therefor. The complainant was operated upon for the removal of stone from his kidney and remained in the hospital of OP No.1 for operation for three days. That the complainant received no relief despite operation from abdominal pain. The complainant suffered severe pain in kidney on 19.08.2008 and he approached OP No.1 and was advised for ultra sound test again. The complainant underwent ultra sound test on 21.08.2008 from Chaudhary Ultra Sound Centre Pathankot on the advice of the OP No.1. It was detected therein that the stone (Calculus) was not removed from the kidney of the complainant and this ultra sound report was shown to OP No.1. The complainant was again asked to deposit Rs. 8,000/- for operation and was assured that this time, the Doctor would be called from Jalandhar to operate him. The complainant spent Rs.50,000/- on the treatment as per the advice of OP No.1. It is case of deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of OP No.1, as they failed to treat the complainant in a scientific way and treated him in a careless manner. The complainant has accordingly filed the complaint against the OPs praying for compensation of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.40,000/- for mental harassment due to medical negligence and carelessness of OP No.1 besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed the detailed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections by OP No.1 that neither any deficiency in service nor any negligence or unfair trade practice on its part is there. That complaint has been filed just to extract money from OP No.1 by the complainant. The complaint is wholly misconceived and baseless. That the United India Insurance Company has not been joined in this case by the complainant being the insurer of OP No.1. It was further averred that complainant came for OPD consultation on 12.07.2008 for the first time with complaint of pain in lumbar region and dysuria for two days with history of vomiting, burning and micturation. The complainant was examined and investigated thoroughly and was advised for URS procedure. Written consent was duly taken first from the complainant and thereafter procedure was performed on 13.07.2008 diligently and complainant was discharged from the hospital of OP No.1 on 15.07.2008 in a satisfactory manner. It was averred that complainant has deliberately made false averment regarding ultrasound test of complainant on 17.06.2008 by OP No.1 and for removal of stone with medicines only. On merits, the complaint was resisted by it. OP No.1 denied that the respondent ever conducted ultrasound test upon the complainant on 17.06.2008 and assured him that the stone would be removed with medicines. It was denied that complainant got no relief after operation on 19.08.2008 and suffered severe pain in kidney. It was also denied that they advised the complainant for ultrasound from Chaudhary Ultrasound Centre, Pathankot on 19.08.2008. It was denied that it was found that stone (calculus) was not removed from the kidney of the complainant by means of operation conducted by OP No.1. It was denied that complainant suffered loss of Rs.50,000/-. That OP hospital is best equipped hospital with all the facilities and infrastructure. Any negligence was denied on the part of OP No.1in by filing written reply in this case. It was alleged that the proper treatment was given to the complainant and he was discharged satisfactorily. OP No.1 vehemently denied any deficiency in service or medical negligence on its part and, thus, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4.           OP No.2 also appeared through its authorized agent and filed the reply. It adopted the reply filed by OP No.1. It was admitted by OP No.2 that it issued indemnity policy to Dr. Daljit Chauhan, which was valid from 12.06.2008 to 11.06.2009.
5.           The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Daljit Singh Chauhan the proprietor Ex.R-1 alongwith documents Ex.R-2 to R-5 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and argument, the District Forum, Gurdaspur dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 13.12.2010. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, Gurdaspur, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
6.           We have heard the counsel for the respondents in this appeal as none appeared for the appellant in this case. We find that since 12 January 2012 nobody has been appearing for the appellant in this appeal and hence we propose to decide the appeal on the basis of merits with the aid of evidence on the record. The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1/A on the record in support of his averments. The complainant also relied upon the hospital slip of OP No.1 dated 13.07.2008 Ex.C-1 and prescription slip Ex.C-2 and the deposit of fee of Rs.200/- with OP No.1 vide Ex.C-3 on 17.06.2008 and prescription slip Ex.C-4 & C-5 and other prescription slips Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9,  Ex.C-10 is ultra sound report of lower abdomen, it record that no intraluminary calculus or growth is seen. There is no evidence of abdominal lymphadeopathy is seen, impression: mild left sided hydroureteronephrosis due to mid ureteric calculus, another report of ultra sound dated 20.11.07 is Ex.C-11, it also recorded the impression: mild right sided hydroureteronephrosis due to lower ureteric calculus, another report of ultrasound Ex.C-12 to this effect and it record the impression: mild left sided hydroureteronephrosis due to a proximal ureteric calculus near PU junction. Similary, the report Ex.C-13 by Choudhary, C.T., ultra sound & X-ray scanning centre is on the record and it records the impression: left ureteric calculus upper 1/3 and it was recorded that further evaluation and confirmation is suggested for the findings. As against it, OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Daljit Singh Chauhan proprietor Ex.R-1 and he stated that there is no medical negligence on his part in this case. The affidavit  of Dr. Rajesh Aggarwal MCh Urology is on the record vide Ex.R-2. He has stated that he is aware of about the case of the complainant, that there has not been any kind of negligence on the part of Dr. Daljit Singh Chauhan while giving the treatment to the complainant. Similarly, affidavit of Mamta Ex.R-3 is on the record ruling out any medical negligence on the part of OP No.1 in this case. Ex.R-4 is document issued by United India Insurance Company and Ex.R-5 affidavit of G.R. Koli, Divisional Manager of Insurance company.
7.           We find that the admitted facts of the case are that the complainant consulted Dr. Daljit Singh Chauhan because of abdominal pain for the last two days with the history of vomiting, burning and micturation. He was examined, his ultrasound test was conducted which revealed 12mm stone in the mid-ureteric region left side. Operation thereof was advised to remove it, which was performed on 13.07.2008. A large calculus was found at about 5cm from the UV junction, which was fragmented with the help of pneumatic lethoclast and the pieces were removed with the help of ureteric forcep. The medication was given to the complainant. Post-operative X-ray was done with the help of C-arm. The submission of the complainant is that he received no relief despite the operation. The complainant heavily relied upon the ultrasound report of Chodhary Ultrasound Centre (Ex.C-13) to the effect that left ureteric calculus upper 1/3 was found. Its further evaluation and confirmation was suggested to arrive at a definite conclusion. Unless further evaluation and confirmation was made, it is not sufficient to conclude that Dr. Daljit Singh Chauhan conducted operation negligently. The District Forum recorded this observation that it gave the option to the complainant to get his ultrasound test done from any ultrasound centre and to produce the report during proceeding of the case. As per this report of ultrasound, no lesion/calculus was seen in the kidney which indicated that outer part of stone in the kidney was flushed out. This report further supports the claim of Dr. Chauhan regarding conducting operation diligently. Since no calculus/stone was found in the ureteric region of the complainant in the above report taken during the pendency of the case. Therefore, no medical negligence can be attributed nor substantiated in this case against the OP No.1.
8.           A medical Doctor is supposed be a qualified doctor and the procedure taken by him should be standard procedure in line and it is not expected of the doctor that he should be more efficient than the other doctors of the same genre. Vide order dated 10.05.2010 of District Forum to the effect whether there was a stone still in the left ureteric of the complainant, the complainant was directed to get his ultrasound done and produced a report on 25.05.2010 to resolve the controversy. The report of Choudhary ultrasound centre was filed on 25.05.2010 in this case, vide Ex.C-13. In the report dated 12.05.2010 of ultrasound, it was recorded hypertrophy prostate grade I and further evaluation and confirmation was suggested. It is nowhere recorded that there is still stone in the left kidney of the complainant. This ultrasound report Ex.CX dated 12.05.2010 has, thus, gone a long way in proving that OP No.1 conducted the operation diligently. We endorse the findings of the District Forum in this case, particularly in view of the affidavit of the medical expert Dr. Rajesh Aggarwal stating that there was no medical negligence at all in this case. There is no evidence on the record that OP No.1 departed from the standard procedure in this case. The Doctor cannot assure the recovery to the patient in each and every case. We do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case.
9.           As a result of our above discussions, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
10.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 04.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February 5, 2015.                                                                           

(MM)