BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 40 of 2015.                                                                         

                                                          Date of Institution         :    24.2.2015

                                                          Date of Decision   :    30.11.2016.

Sukhveer Singh, aged about 29 years son of Shri Hardayal Singh, resident of village Sukhchain, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).

                                                                                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

Dr. Mamta, MS (ENT) Surgeon, Ex. Medical Officer, PBM Hospital Bikaner, now at present Mamta, ENT Hospital, Opposite City Diagnostic Centre, Sangwan Chowk, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                                                                              ...…Opposite party.

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

Before:        SH.S.B.LOHIA………………. ……PRESIDENT.      

                 SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………                 MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Rishi Sharma, proxy counsel for Sh.R.P. Jindal, Adv for the opposite party.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he was suffering from ailment in his right ear due to which he was suffering serious pain and was not in position of proper hearing. The complainant visited the opposite party in the month of August, 2014 for treatment and op advised for x-ray which was conducted from Public Diagnostics, Sirsa on 14.8.2014 and report revealed B/S Mastoid Air Cells are sclerosed. The opposite party operated the right ear of the complainant in the month of August, 2014 and received Rs.10,000/- from him for said operation and treatment and assured him that now his right ear is alright. However, the disease in his right ear could not be heeled and there were serious noises in his right ear. The complainant again approached opposite party and op advised him operation again. Then she again operated his right ear on 6.12.2014 and received Rs.5,000/- from him and assured that operation is successful but again the position was same. Even the complainant has taken medicines as per advise of the doctor but all in vain. He visited the op on so many occasions and narrated his problem but to no effect and now she has refused to admit his claim and refused to give any treatment. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and filed reply wherein she took certain preliminary objections regarding cause of action, estoppal and non-joinder of Oriental Insurance Company. On merits, it has been averred that op is working in the profession since 2009 effectively as a qualified surgeon and there remained no complaint of any kind from her patients earlier in any case. No assurance was ever given by the op. Declaration form was also given by the complainant himself also by his attendant who were told in detail prior to the operation, the risk of surgery which was made with full care and caution, but the result remains in the hands of God as per their slogan “We treat but He cures.” The complainant has alleged hearing loss and as per report of “Audiogram” pre-operation and post operation record is almost the same, though no increase in hearing happened but there is no hearing loss, but a surgeon cannot take the guarantee that the hearing shall surely be increased. He has not lost any hearing and there is no negligence on the part of op.

3.                In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7.

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

5.                There is nothing on file to prove that any medical negligence has been committed by the treating doctor i.e. opposite party while conducting operation of right ear of the complainant. Further, there is no medical/ expert opinion on the file to prove that after conducting of operations by the opposite party, the complainant has completely lost his hearing through right ear or hearing through right ear has been decreased after operation.  There is no opinion of any expert on the file to prove that opposite party no.1 who is a Medical Surgeon (E.N.T) has conducted wrong operations of the ear of the complainant. As such, complainant has failed to prove his case and therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated: 30.11.2016.                                     Member.  District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                  Redressal Forum, Sirsa.