BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 123 of 2016                                                                        

                                                        Date of Institution         :    10.5.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    12.10.2017.

Sunny Kumar aged about 22 years son of Shri Dalip Singh, resident of Gali Jandi Wali, Khairpur, Hisar Road, Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Dr. Abhishek Sihag, Sihag Hospital, Near Bus Stand, Hisar Road, Sirsa.

2. Sihag Hospital, Near Bus Stand, Hisar Road, Sirsa.

                                                                              ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

      SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER

                SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. Bhupinder Khattar,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Mahesh Pareek, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that on 24.3.2016 the complainant suffered injury on his right hand as he slipped in his house and accidentally he struck into the window and glass of the same broken down over his right hand. On account of the same a lot of blood oozed out from his hand. That the father of complainant namely Shri Dalip Singh took him to the opposite parties and requested to provide first aid to the complainant. The injury was inspected by op no.1 and he stated it to be minor. He further assured the complainant and his father not to worry. The op no.1 claiming himself be the surgeon and specialist stitched the skin of right hand of the complainant and some medicines were advised to the complainant. It is further averred that complainant in view of the assurance made by op no.1 became easy. The complainant was asked to visit the ops regularly at least for a period of about one week for checking. The complainant kept on visiting the hospital about 4-5 days and minor aid was being provided to him but as there was no improvement in the condition of the injury, hence the complainant finding no other way visited Azad Surgical Hospital, Sirsa on 30.3.2016. However, to the surprise of the complainant, it was brought to his notice by the doctor of that hospital that the vein of hand of complainant has been cut down on account of the said injury and the same was held by him to be serious and complainant was immediately referred to higher medical institution. That thereafter on 31.3.2016, the complainant also visited Medicity Hospital, Sirsa and on consultation the injury of complainant was held to be serious. It is further averred that after consultation with the doctor of Medicity Hospital, now he is under treatment of Sanjivani Hospital, Sirsa and is taking treatment. The doctor of Sanjivani Hospital got tested the injury of complainant and on receipt of the report sharp cut on his right little and right middle finger has been opined by the doctor. It is necessary to mention here that the complainant was got admitted in the hospital on 1.4.2016 and he remained admitted there upto 4.4.2016 and thereafter he was discharged from the hospital. A total sum of more than Rs.30,000/- has already been spent by the complainant on his treatment and he is still taking treatment. It is further averred that complainant has been advised physiotherapy and as per the advise the complainant has appointed a physiotherapist to whom he has been paying a sum of Rs.250/- daily. It is further averred that in this manner, the op holding himself to be specialist and surgeon defrauded the complainant and had taken a huge amount from him on account of the treatment whereas actually the op no.1 is not a surgeon and cannot operate such type of patients rather the op no.1 is only BDS MDS (Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon) relating to mouth surgery. The act and conduct on the part of ops comes under the ambit of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which the complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and hardship etc. Moreover, the op no.1 has refused to provide the treatment chart and other slips. That on account of the aforesaid act of the op no.1, the future prospectus of the complainant have been shattered as he has become unable to do any job. The complainant approached the ops and requested to compensate the complainant and also got served a legal notice on 6.4.2016 but to no effect. Hence this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that complainant has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint; that the whole of the transaction is denied due to incomplete reference and data supposed to be supplied by the complainant. No prescription or receipt of fee/charges purported to be issued by op no.1 have been attached with the complaint in order to facilitate complete reference of the case; that whatever information/ description has been provided in the complaint, no conclusive inference can be drawn about the diagnosis and the course of treatment provided to the complainant. At the most, it may be a case of OPD/ first aid not involving any treatment or monetary charges whatsoever and that no charges/ fee has been shown to be charged. On merits, it is submitted that as far as what has been revealed in thorough inquiry of the case is very shocking. The injury reported by the patient/ complainant was in fact self inflicted received by him under the influence of liquor consumed by him excessively. The complainant may be an OPD patient and without any monetary charges paid by complainant. As usual, the complainant might have been provided the best possible treatment available in the hospital as demanded by the exigency on the spot and as a norm for the ops. It is specifically submitted that the complainant has fabricated the allegations and the reports have been exaggerated to suit the evil designs of the complainant. The complainant has not disclosed the course of treatment post injury and alleged treatment by op. The complainant has not mentioned the disability suffered by him or report of any competent authority declaring such physical disability. It is further submitted that no such legal notice dated 6.4.2016 as alleged was ever received. However, a legal notice dated 2.4.2016 was received alleging cause of action similar to this complaint. It is specifically submitted to clarify that the legal notice was half baked and had no head and tale to disclose the incident, including party and other vital information sufficient to establish proper cause of action. Yet the op replied the same in prescribed time period and the same was duly received by the counsel for complainant. It is further submitted that the ops through their reply to the legal notice dated 2.4.2016 requested the counsel for the complainant to provide the complete information but he failed to do so. All the other contents of the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.     

3.                The complainant produced affidavit of Dr. Rajesh Punhani, Plastic Surgeon, Sanjivani Hospital, Sirsa as Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of his father Dalip Kumar as Ex.C1, copies of medical record and bills Ex.C2 to C28, copies of postal cards Ex.C29, Ex.C30 and copy of pamphlet of Sanjivani Hospital Ex.C31, postal receipt Ex.C32, copy of legal notice Ex.C33 and CD Ex.C34, affidavit of complainant Ex.CW/B, affidavit of Smt. Karamjeet Kaur wife of Makhan Singh Ex.CW/C and photographs Ex.C35 to Ex.C38, literature of tablets Ex.C39 and Ex.C40. On the other hand, opposite parties produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A, reply to legal notice Ex.R1, postal receipt Ex.R2, acknowledgment Ex.R3, copy of decision dated 2.9.2016 Ex.R4 and copy of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Ex.R5.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The prescription slip dated 24.3.2016 of Sihag Hospital, Sirsa produced on file by complainant as Ex.C2 mentions “Tendon injury” and some medicines like Cefomed and megadol etc. were prescribed by op doctor to the complainant and admittedly stitches on the injury of complainant were also applied by the op doctor and there is also mention on the prescription slip dated 24.3.2016 itself that patient was referred on the same day by op doctor to tendon specialist. There is nothing on file to suggest that op doctor asked the complainant to come for follow up in his hospital or complainant thereafter visited the hospital of the op doctor. The complainant has produced on file medical literature regarding Cefomed tablet and Megadol tablet as Ex.C39 and Ex.C40 but we see no wrong on the part of op doctor while prescribing these tablets to the complainant because it is mentioned in the literature itself that Cefomed tablet is for skin and soft tissue infections besides for some other diseases and Megadol tablet increases the blood flow across the skin, heat loss and sweating. The op doctor besides reiterating his version of written statement in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A has also submitted that it is pious duty of a Medical Professional to attend the patient with due diligence and this proposition finds supported from the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that a doctor is to attend the patient first and he is duty bound to do so irrespective of anything else, a doctor, was under the Hippocratic oath to attempt to heal a patient. Just as it is duty of a lawyer to defend an accused, so also it is the duty of doctor to heal. Even a dentist can apply stitches in an emergency. We find mentions these observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Reports 590 relied upon by opposite parties. In the present case, the op doctor who is a BDS, MDS and running hospital in the name of Sihag Hospital applied stitches on the injury on the hand of the complainant in emergency and not done any surgery and immediately referred the complainant to tendon specialist. Dr. Rajesh Punhani, Plastic Surgeon in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A tendered on behalf of complainant has deposed that on 1.4.2016, the complainant Sunny Kumar son of Shri Dalip Kumar was got admitted in Sanjivani Hospital Sirsa where the deponent was working as a Plastic Surgeon. At the time of admission in the hospital, the tendons of his right hand were found cut down before 8 days. The complainant was advised surgery and on 1.4.2016 the surgical operation was done by the deponent. The operation took about 45-60 minutes and previous stitches were removed during operation. If the patient would not have been operated upon, the same will effect the movement of the hand of the patient. The little as well as the ring finger of right hand of the patient lost its movement on account of the cut caused to the right forearm of the patient. The patient remained admitted in the hospital from 1.4.2016 to 4.4.2017 (correct date is 4.4.2016) and thereafter he was discharged from the hospital and he was advised to physiotherapy as well as regular follow up. In his cross-examination by ops, the above said doctor has stated that he has seen the prescription by Sihag Hospital, Sirsa Ex.C2, wherein the injury has been diagnosed as tendon injury. He admitted that it was correctly diagnosed. He has further stated that it is correct that at first instance the stitches were given to prevent bleeding which was required at that stage. He has further stated that there was nothing found wrong during his observation in previous treatment. There was deficiency in movement of right hand three fingers. After surgery there was full scope for improvement but without surgery in such type of injury, there is no scope of improvement without tendon repair. He has further stated that patient informed him about accidental injury to right upper limb and took treatment from nearby Hospital. There was no complaint about the previous treatment. Thus, the said doctor produced by the complainant himself who is an expert Medical professional and conducted surgery for tendon repair of the complainant has categorically stated that injury has been rightly diagnosed as tendon injury by op doctor and stitches were given to prevent bleeding which was required at the relevant time and he found nothing wrong in the first aid given by op doctor. Moreover, as already mentioned above, the op doctor immediately after applying stitches on the injury of complainant referred him to tendon specialist. Not only this, the complainant has also failed to prove that op doctor charged any amount from the complainant. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as well as medical negligence on the part of the op doctor.  The authorities cited by learned counsel for complainant in cases titled as Alfred Benddict and another Vs. M/s Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and others, reported as 2015(4) SCC (Civil ) 779 (SC), V. Krishnakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2015 AIR (SC) 2836, and Ashish Kumar Mazumdar vs. Aishi Ram Batra Charitable Hospital Trust & others, 2014(2) (SC) 319 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and are factually distinguishable.

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                                         President,

Dated:12.10.2017.                          Member                  Member      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.