Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 590
Instituted on : 30.11.2018
Decided on : 31.10.2022
Ashok s/o Sh.Manphool Singh R/o Arya Nagar Jhajjar Tehsil & Distt. Jhajjar.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Doctor Vikash Dagar, Sunflage Hospital Near Sheela Bye Pass Sonipat Road Rohtak Tehsil & District Rohtak.
- Director of the Sunflage Hospital Near Sheela Bye Pass Sonipat Road Rohtak Tehsil & District Rohtak.
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Office Address 4E/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandewala Extn. New Delhi-110055.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Shri Surjeet Gulia, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Anil Balhara, Advocate for opposite party No. 1 & 2 and Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for opposite party no. 1.
Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for opposite party no. 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that complainant’s son was selected in the Airforce and at the time of medical checkup, doctors team said a pimple in his chest. He was given time for treatment of pimple. Thereafter complainant’s son took treatment from Sunflage Hospital from Dr. Vikash Dagar. After treatment Dr. Vikash Dagar declared the complainant’s son 100% fit. After treatment complainant’s son went for Airforce medical where doctor’s team took medical and declared him as unfit and dropped out of the appointment. It is further submitted that complainant met opposite party no. 1 & 2 and told them that they have not done complete treatment and requested them to return his deposited money of Rs.25,000/- hospital fee and Rs.10,000/- for medicine. But opposite party no.1 denied to return the money. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- alongwith interest, Rs.10,000/- as harassment and Rs.15,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that opposite party no. 1 is fully insured from opposite party no. 3 and insurance company is liable to reimburse the liability of opposite party no. 1, if any. It is further submitted that the son of the complainant was admitted on 26.08.2018 with diagnosis of B/L Gynaecomastia. After thoroughly explaining and taking consent of son of complainant, he was operated upon on same day B/L Leposection & gland excision was done on 26.08.2018 and 27.08.2018 the son of complaiantn was discharged without any complaints. It is incorrect that son of complainant came for treatment of pimple in the chest. The son of complainant was examined on04.09.2018 by the respodnentno.1 and on that day no complaint was made by the son of complainant and he was happy for his treatment and on the request of son of complainant, certificate dated 04.09.2018 was issued. The respondent did their best as per their knowledge and rule of medical science in regards of treatment. The complainant did not met with opposite party no. 1 and he has not made any complaint qua his son’s treatment. The complainant never demanded Rs.35000/- from the respondents. The son of complainant came to the hospital for treatment of Gynaecomastia and the respondent no.1 had never promised to the son of complainant to get fitness for the purpose of recruitment in Air Force. Gynaecomastia is a condition which is subjective diagnosis and not a disease and the treatment is only cosmetic and the respondents should not be held responsible for not getting medical fitness of son of complainant for the purpose of recruitment in job. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No. 3 in its reply has submitted that it is wrong and denied that the complainant or his son had spent of Rs.1,20,000/- on recruitment, treatment and medical checkup. However the opposite party no. 1 is qualified and best doctors and they provide proper treatment to the son of the complainant. The answering opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed his evidence on dated 22.07.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 & 2 in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1/A, documents Ex. R1 and closed his evidence on dated 24.02.2022. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no. 3 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. RW-3/A and documents Ex. R3/1 and closed his evidence on 08.06.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case grievance of the complainant is that he took treatment from the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.1 declared him medically fit but when he went for Airforce medical, they declared him unfit. Due to carelessness of opposite party No.1, son of complainant lost Airforce job and he suffered mental and financial loss. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record copy of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18. As per the copy of certificate Ex.C9 issued by the opposite party No.1, “Patient Rupesh i.e. son of complainant was admitted in the hospital on 26.08.2018 and diagnosis of B/L Gynaecomastia B/L Liposuction & gland excision was done on 26.08.2018. He is now free of his complaint”. On the other hand as per the medical certificate issued by the Central Airmen Selection Board placed on record as Ex.C10, the son of complainant was declared medically unfit on account of : i) Digital Tremors, ii) Sinosis Grade IIb Gynaecomastia.
7. After going through the documents placed on record by both the parties, it is observed that as per copy of discharge card Ex.C8, patient was kept under observation and no fresh complaint was observed and he was discharged in healthy condition. It is also observed that opposite party no.1 has diagnosed the son of complainant for B/L Gynaecomastia B/L Liposuction & gland excision was done on 26.08.2018 but at the time of issuing the certificate by opposite party No.1 on dated 04.09.2018, the son of complainant was fit and he did not make any complaint about any symptoms of alleged disease and therefore, the doctor has declared him free of his complaint. Opposite party No.1 has not given any fitness certificate for the purpose of selection in Airmen Selection Board. At the time of arguments complainant has placed on record a document ‘Annexure JN-C’ issued by the medical examination team ‘Military Receivable Order’ dated 19.07.2018 and as per this document, on dated 19.07.2018 the complainant was not found medically fit on account of : 1) overweight, Gynaecomastia, DNS(RT) Inferior Turbinate Hypertrophy(LT) and Digital tremors. Thereafter another medical was conducted on dated 19.09.2018 and approximately same situation was declared in certificate Ex.C10 and he was declared medically unfit by the Central Airmen Selection Board. In this regard it is observed that every institute/medical board have their own parameters for declaring a candidate fit or unfit. From the alleged ‘medical unfitness certificate’ issued by the Medical Board, it is not established that the opposite party No.1 has given wrong treatment or wrongly declared him fit. Complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion to prove the fact that the diagnosis given by the doctor(opposite party no.1) was not upto the mark and that he did not perform his duties with reasonable skill and competence. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in 2009(3)CLT 526 titled Nitish Sethi & Ors. Vs. Naresh Trehan & Ors., Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Left Bundle Branch Block(LBBB)-Informed consent obtained-Death of patient aged 37 years-OPs have rendered treatment based on known medical text procedures-The allegations made in the complaint against surgeon not substantiated by any evidence-Mere allegations, apprehension, conjectures and surmises cannot be relied upon unless they are corroborated with evidential value to conclude that there is deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Ops-There is no deficiency in service/negligence on the part of the Ops.”.
8. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant has failed to prove negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
31.10.2022.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
