BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.333 of 2014

                                  Date of institution:          19.05.2014

                                                 Date of Decision:            28.04.2015

Rajwinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of House No.29, Phase 3B-1, Mohali, Punjab.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Cheema Medical Complex, Phase-IV, Near Medical Telephone Exchange, Phase-IV, Mohali.

2.     Dr. Harsh Kumar, Cheema Medical Complex, Phase-IV, Near Medical Telephone Exchange, Phase-IV, Mohali.

3.     Arvind Khanna, Doctor on duty, Cheema Medical Complex, Phase-IV, Near Medical Telephone Exchange, Phase-IV, Mohali.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.

Present:    None for the complainant.

Shri G.D. Goyal, counsel for the OPs.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant Rajwinder Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs) to:

(a)    refund him 2,27,739/- taken by the OPs.

(b)    to pay him interest to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 23.03.2012

(c)    to pay him Rs.25,000/- as  legal expenses.

(d)    to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- for  harassment.

                The complainant has alleged in the complaint that OP No.1 is on the panel of his employer. His mother Pritam Kaur was suffering from stomache and was admitted with OP No.1 on the advice of OP Nos.2 and 3. The complainant and his mother told the OPs that the patient was suffering from blood sugar, blood pressure and some other diseases.  Thereafter, OP Nos.2 and 3 after conducting many tests informed the complainant about laparoscopic operation of his mother. The complainant sought the medical reports of his mother but after many efforts only some papers were given to him. The complainant consulted another doctor who informed that the reports are normal and no need for Laparoscopy.  However, without listening the complainant the doctors of OP No.1 conducted the laparoscopy without asking the complainant and without consulting any anesthesia doctor.  After the operation the health of mother of the complainant deteriorated upon which the complainant contacted OP No.1 but nobody came to see his mother. OP No.2 also shouted badly on telephone. OP No.2 and 3 when came again on round shouted at the complainant and asked that his mother is normal and he is unnecessary harassing them.  OP No.2 checked his mother on 22.11.2012 and found that she is serious as his pulse rate was very low and took her to ICU where she died after two hours. The mother of the complainant died due to negligence of the OPs as she was operated just for monetary gains as she was not fit for operation due to blood sugar and blood pressure.  The OPs have charged an amount of Rs.2,27,739/- from the complainant vide receipt dated 22.11.2012. The OPs have not provided any medical record of the mother of the complainant.  The complainant has also given complaint against the OPs to SSP, Mohali and had even approached Human Rights Commission who advised the complainant for filing the present complaint.  The incident was also reported in the newspapers. The complainant also served legal notice to the OPs. Alleging medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             After the admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OPs who put in appearance and filed written reply. The OPs have pleaded in the preliminary objections that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint; the complainant is stopped from his own act and conduct to file the complaint; it is an abuse of process of law; the complaint is after thought as it has been filed after one and half year from the date of death of mother of the complainant.  On merits, it is pleaded that mother of the complainant was brought the OP No.1 with the complaint of stomach pain and she was admitted with OP No.1. Initial treatment was carried out on 02.11.2012. After conducting the tests the complainant and his mother were told about the disease and the need for treatment as there was suspicion of tumor inside the abdomen of the patient.  It is denied that OP No.3 asked for laparoscopy as he is not a doctor and has not medically treated the mother of the complainant. He is only a caretaker and has no concern with the treatment of the patients. OP No.2 explained the requisite treatment to the complainant as well as to his mother. The complainant even took second opinion from the doctor and on his advise the complainant agreed for the treatment. The complainant was well informed on every step of the treatment and he consented voluntarily and the treatment was given according to the requirement.  There is no negligence on the part of the OP No.2 as OP No.2 did according to his ability and experience.  The OPs have denied that they ever refused to supply the reports to the complainant.  The anesthesia was given to the mother of the complainant by calling the doctor concerned and the consent was also taken for the same.  Before the surgery the medical fitness was taken from the medicine doctor. It is denied that the condition of the mother of the complainant deteriorated after the operation. Rather she was improving day by day and the operation was successful.  After 15.11.2012 the patient was under the observation of medicine doctor  as there was complaint of other medical problems. It is the medical problem which occurred on 22.11.2012 and the patient was shifted to ICU.  The OPs have denied that mother of the complainant died due to negligence of the OPs.  The receipt dated 22.11.2012 is an advance receipt to enable the patient to get reimbursement as per the policy of the department. The amount has been credited to the account of the complainant but he has not made any payment. The complaint has been filed to avoid making of payment of Rs.2,27,239/-.  The complaint made to SSP was disposed off after proper investigation and the complaint made to Human Rights Commission was also dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2013.   Thus denying any medical negligence on their part the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-11.

4.             In order to rebut the complaint, the OPs have tendered the affidavit of Dr. Harsh Kumar and tendered copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 in the evidence.

 5.            Learned counsel for the complainant addressed oral arguments on 18.12.2014 and sought time for submission of written arguments but thereafter none appeared for the complainant.  We have heard learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the written arguments filed by him. 

6.             The grievance of the complainant is that his mother was admitted with the OPs on 02.11.2012 with the complaint of pain in the stomach. After conducting various tests the OPs have conducted the laparoscopic operation on 09.11.2012 without his consent without taking assistance of anesthesia and against the second opinion obtained by him during the stay of his mother with the OPs as indoor patient from 02.11.2012. Ultimately his mother died on 22.11.2012 and the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.2,27,739/- on 22.11.2012. Thus the complainant has suffered loss and mental agony.

7.             In order to resolve the controversy it will be appropriate to deal with the issues raised by the complainant one by one.  The first issue regarding conducting of the operation without his consent. The complainant has not produced any document to show that his consent was not obtained. On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has drawn our attention to Ex.OP-5 internal page 43 i.e. the clinical notes maintained by the OPs during the period when the patient was under indoor treatment with the OPs. The relevant Page-43 regarding the consent of the complainant i.e. the son of the patient  wherein the complainant  has given in writing the consent for conducting the operation and line of treatment having been duly explained to him have been consented by him. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence from the complainant regarding non obtaining of the consent and obtaining the consent having been duly proved by the OPs vide Ex.OP-5 Page-43, the contention of the complainant is ill founded.

8.             The allegation regarding non consultations with anesthetist the operation has been conducted by OP.2 the treating doctor. We have perused the clinical notes Ex.OP-5 dated 09.11.2012 wherein the detailed notes regarding anesthesia has been mentioned and as per the affidavit of the treating doctor the operation has been conducted under general anesthesia. Both the documents when read conjointly clearly reveal that the operation was conducted after the aid and assistance of anesthetist. There is no evidence by the complainant to prove his contention in this regard. Thus, his grievance on this issue is also ill founded.

9.             The another contention of the complainant that during the admission of patient as indoor and before conducting the operation by the doctor i.e. OP No.2, the complainant has taken second opinion after showing all the diagnostics reports of the patient to the other doctor and as per the other doctor the operation was not warranted and still against the second opinion the OPs have conducted the operation. In this regard, the complainant has failed to show any document or second opinion of another doctor, therefore, bald assertion is of no help to the complainant to prove his contention.

10.           So far as the payment of Rs.2,27,739/- is concerned, admittedly the complainant’s mother remained in the hospital from 02.11.2012 to 22.11.2012 till her death on 22.11.2012 and has undergone the treatment as per the skill and wisdom of the treating doctor and has thus availed the services of the OPs and, therefore, the OPs have rightly charged the amount from the complainant vide receipt dated 22.12.2012 Ex.C-1. Perusal of Ex.C-1 shows that the receipt has been issued in the name of the patient Pritam Kaur c/o Ranbaxy. In fact the complainant is an employee of Ranbaxy and he has received the receipt for the total cost of treatment. As per the OPs the said amount reflected in the receipt dated 22.11.2012 Ex.C-1 has not been paid by the complainant to the OPs. As per the Ops, the said receipt is an advance receipt to get the payment from the employer of the complainant. Since the payment has not been made, the OPs vide Ex.C-11 i.e. an e-mail from OP No.1 to

11.           The perusal of Ex.C-1 reveals nowhere the word ‘advance’ mentioned on the receipt. Therefore, the plea of the OPs that it was an advance receipt and the payment is still outstanding against the complainant is without any merit.

12.           Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has even filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission has disposed of the complaint as no intervention was required by the commission as is evident from   Ex.C-3. 

13.            As per the OPs the real cause of filing the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law as the OPs have demanded payment of the treatment and this present complaint is only a counter blast.   The OPs have followed all the laid down norms and procedure while treating the patient as an indoor patient from 02.11.2012 to 22.12.2012 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

14.           As stated above since the complainant has not been able to prove his grievances raised in the complaint and bald assertions are of no help to the complainant to prove his grievance of negligence against the OPs, therefore, the complaint being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.  

15.           Since the complainant is failed to prove his complaint against the OPs, the complaint, therefore, being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs forthwith and thereafter the papers be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.     

April 28, 2015. 

                                            (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (A.B. Aggarwal)

Member