Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/693/2012

Rajnish Kumar S/o Mam Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Doctor Sauraj Nanda - Opp.Party(s)

D.C.Aggarwal

29 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                     Complaint No.693  of 2012.

                                                                                      Date of institution:04.07.2012

                                                                                      Date of decision:  29.05.2017

Rajnish Kumar aged about 27 years son of Shri Mam Chand, resident of V.P.O. Malik Pur Bangar, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Doctor Suraj Nanda Proprietor of Sardari Lal Hospital Coloured Ultrasound Diagnostic Centre & Fully computerized Path Lab, near Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 6269, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt, Ambala, Haryana.

 

                                                                                                            …Respondents.          

BEFORE        SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. D.C.Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Sushil Garg, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2. 

 

ORDER   (ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Rajnish Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended up to date.          

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that on 17.06.2012 complainant visited the Ultrasound Diagnostic Centre of respondent doctor (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) and told to the doctor that he is having some pain in his abdomen and after checking, thoroughly, the OP No.1 Doctor conducted the ultrasound of the complainant and gave his report in which he has mentioned that “ liver shows normal shape, size and texture with grade 1 fatty liver” and told to the complainant that the said pain is due to the fatty liver and suggested him to get the treatment of his liver. On his advise, the complainant started taking medicine for liver. As a result of which the entire body of the complainant was swollen and complainant became serious but with great difficulties and best efforts of the doctor who was giving treatment to the complainant, the life of the complainant can be saved. Thereafter, the doctor who was giving treatment to the complainant for liver advised him to get his ultrasound done from some other specialist, accordingly, the complainant get his ultrasound done on 21.06.2012 from Doctor Mehta’s X-ray, Ultrasound & CT Scan Centre, Yamuna Nagar who after doing the ultrasound gave his report that Calculi approximately 4-5 mm seen in lower part of left ureteric with mild moderate grade hydronephrosis. Further, the said doctor told to the complainant that he was not having any liver problem. Upon which, the complainant was shocked to listen the same. The treatment for liver was given to the complainant on the basis of wrong ultrasound report of the OP doctor. As the Op No.1 doctor was negligent in discharge of his duty as such the OP No.1 doctor is liable to pay compensation and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of medicines, mental agony, tensions, harassment pain etc. as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 doctor filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is totally false, groundless and unsustainable in the eye of law; no specific/ scientific allegation has been made regarding negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 Doctor as the complainant has failed to explain as to how the OP No.1 Doctor was negligent, no cause of action arose against the Op No.1 doctor; the OP No.1 doctor is well qualified doctor and on merit it has been admitted that patient Rajnish aged about 27 years visited the OP No.1 doctor on 17.06.2012 with the complaints of pain in the abdomen. Upon which the OP No.1 doctor advised to get done ultrasound whole abdomen and the same was done by the OP No.1 Doctor with the report liver shows normal shape, size and texture with grade 1 fatty liver. It has been further mentioned that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 doctor. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect.

4.                     Op No.2 appeared and filed its written statement besides preliminary objections, it has been mentioned that the complaint is relating to the doctor who has given the detailed reply as per record of treatment given to the patient, which is correct one as per record. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no medical negligence on the part of OP No.1 doctor.

5.                       In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and report of Ultrasound dated 21.06.2012 as Annexure C-1 to C-3, copy of report dated 17.06.2012 conducted by Sardari Lal Hospital as Annexure C-4 and C-5, Copy of receipt of Rs. 400/- as Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 doctor tendered into evidence affidavit as Annexure RW1/A and documents such as Photo copy of certificate of registration as Annexure R1/1 and R1/2, photo copy of ultrasound report dated 17.06.2012 as Annexure R1/3 & R1/4, Photo copy of receipt of Rs. 400/- as Annexure R1/5 and photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R1/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 doctor.

7                      Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. B.L. Jagwan Divisional Manager as Annexure RW2/A and document such as photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.               

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     From the perusal of report dated 17.06.2012 Annexure C-5 which was got prepared by Op No.1 doctor, it is duly evident that Op No.1 doctor has nowhere mentioned in his report that the complainant was having any calculi approximately 4-5 mm in the lower part of the left ureteric with mild moderate grade I hydronephrosis rather it has been mentioned that liver shows normal shape, size and texture with grade 1 fatty liver. Whereas in the another report issued by Doctor Mehta’s X-ray, Ultrasound and CT Scan Centre dated 21.06.2012 Annexure C-2 and C-3 it has been mentioned by that doctor that liver gall bladder etc. were normal, however, there is a calculi (approximately 4-5 mm) seen in the lower part of ureteric, meaning thereby that both the reports are contradictory with each other. It was the duty of the complainant that in order to confirm the actual position, he should have got more ultrasound report from third doctor but the complainant has failed to do the same. Even, the complainant has neither placed on file any record of treatment of any doctor nor disclosed the name of any doctor from which he obtained the treatment of fatty liver or calculi as alleged in the complaint by relying upon on the report of either of the doctors. The complainant has placed on file only two (2) contradictory reports Annexure C-2 and C-5 but it is very difficult to hold that which report is showing correct position of the complainant. Further, the complainant has not placed on file any affidavit of the said doctor i.e. Mahinder Kumar Mehta who issued the ultrasound report dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure C-1 and C-2) to prove that there was any negligence on the part of OP No.1 doctor. The case law referred by the counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case as in this complaint, complainant has totally failed to prove that USG report issued by of Op No.1 Doctor was not reflecting the position of abdomen of the complainant rather USG report (Annexure C-5) issued by the Dr. Mehta was true to place on file any record of treatment taken from any doctor for pain in abdomen as alleged in the complaint. Even in both the reports Annexure C-2 and C-5, no name of any referring doctor has been mentioned.

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that complainant has totally failed to prove that OP No.1 Doctor issued wrong USG report to the complainant. Hence, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 29.05.2017.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                                DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR.

 

 

                  (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                 (S.C.SHARMA)

                   MEMBER                                                  MEMBER