BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 106 of 2012.
Date of Institution : 30.5.2012
Date of Decision : 23.1.2017.
Krishan Kumar son of Shri Amar Singh son of Shri Kashi Ram, resident of village Darba Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dr. Mohar Singh Surgical Hospital, Sangwan Chowk, Dabwali Road, Sirsa now at Hisar Road, Near Canal Colony, Sirsa.
2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, City Thana Road, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA………………. ……PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.R. Pilania, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. B.S. Gill, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh. Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that he was not feeling well in the month of May, 2010 and was suffering pain in his abdomen and for that on 28.5.2010 he visited the hospital of opposite party no.1 who is posing himself to be M.B.B.S. MS (General Surgery) and Ex. Civil Surgeon, General hospital, Sirsa. The op no.1 checked him thoroughly and charged Rs.150/- from him and advised him that he is suffering from appendix disease and also advised for x-ray, ultra sound and laboratory tests from City Diagnostic Centre, Sirsa. Dr. Sanjiv Kaushal Incharge of said centre conducted all the tests of complainant and thereafter given his report on the same day and opined “MASS in RT SIDE of ABDOMEN”. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the said report to the op doctor and he again advised him for several tests from Garg Diagnostic Centre and several tests were conducted there and that centre given its report that ‘Normal Ultra- sonography abdomen USG with S/P Probe:- Appendix not visualized hypoechoic Mass with central echogenicity in RIF advised barium meal follow through.” After going through the above said both the reports, op doctor started medical treatment of complainant and on 31.5.2010 he advised some medicines for TB disease and treatment of disease of TB continued by him up to 18.6.2010 and op doctor was also charging the amount from him from time to time but the complainant was not feeling well and his condition became critical. The complainant ultimately on 26.8.2010 went to Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner for medical treatment and where he was got admitted by the doctor and he was thoroughly medically checked up by the concerned doctor and the doctors opined that he is suffering from cancer disease in his abdomen and also opined that there is no TB disease to him and that he is suffering from cancer disease from the last more than one year and his medical treatment was started there. He was advised chemotherapy on 30.9.2010 and was referred to Dr. Sandeep Jain and his all tests were got conducted from Dr. Lal Path Labs, Bikaner on 3.9.2010. Dr. R.K. Kajla also checked him and given the medical treatment to him regarding the above said disease which is still going on and now he is feeling well. The op doctor had not given the medical treatment to the complainant properly and regarding the disease from which he was suffering. The op doctor has wrongly assessed the disease of complainant and wrong medical treatment was started by him. If the complainant had not been treated from Sardar Patel Medical Institute, Bikaner and remained under the treatment of op, then he could have died. There was deficiency in service on the part of op and complainant has suffered mental tension, agony and harassment and also suffered huge loss. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.25,0,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, transportation and treatment charges and also litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- from the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding cause of action and maintainability. It has been further submitted that complainant came to the hospital of op in the month of May, 2010 and he told him that he is suffering pain in his abdomen. The op advised him for ultra sound and he got conducted the ultra sound and according to report of ultra sound laboratory, the complainant was suffering from TB disease and op given the treatment regarding the disease of TB. The op had charged fee only. The complainant was telling the op that he is feeling well. The op has not wrongly assessed the disease of the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. The United India Insurance company Ltd. was impleaded on the application of op no.1. On notice, said insurance company i.e. op no.2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi; suppression of material facts; estoppal and that individual negligence, error, omission on the part of op no.1 is required to be proved by way of authenticated record and proof. In this case, op no.1 had obtained the individual insurance policy from the answering op, so the answering op is only liable to indemnify the op no.1 in case his individual liability is established. It has been further submitted that op no.1 got conducted the ultra sound upon the complainant and as per report of ultra sound, op no.1 prescribed the medicines to the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
4. By way of evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1. prescription slip dated 28.5.2010 Ex.C2, prescription slip dated 18.6.2010 Ex.C3, laboratory report of City Diagnostic Centre Ex.C4, ultra sound report dated 31.5.2010 Ex.C5, ultra sound report dated 1.6.2010 Ex.C6, laboratory report Ex.C7, copy of discharge and follow up card of Bikaner hospital Ex.C8, prescription slip Ex.C9, pathology report Ex.C10, laboratory test reports Ex.C11, Ex.C12, copy of prescription slip Ex.C12-A, ultra sound reports Ex.C13, Ex.C14, Ex.C15, medical bills Ex.C16 to Ex.C29, receipts Ex.C30 to Ex.C38, medical bills Ex.C39 to Ex.C48 and medical records Ex.C49 to Ex.C78. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. K.R. Jain, Divisional Manager Ex.R1, copy of insurance policy Ex.R2. OP no.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.R3 and particulars of insurance policy Ex.R4.
5. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has placed on file affidavit of Dr. R.K. Kalja (M.S) P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. From the prescription slip dated 28.5.2010 Ex.C2, it is evident that complainant visited the hospital of op doctor on that date upon which op doctor got conducted various tests of the complainant including USG for appendix from Diagnostic Centers. In Ultra Sound report of complainant given by City Diagnostic Centre dated 28.5.2010 Ex.C4, it was opined that Mass in right side of abdomen and on 31.5.2010 op doctor again got conducted ultra sound of the complainant for tuberculosis from another Diagnostic Centre i.e. Garg Diagnostic Centre and according to the report of that Diagnostic Centre Ex.C5, also Hypoechoic Mass with central echogenicity in RIF was found and barium meal follow through was advised by the said laboratory which was done by the said Diagnostic Center on 1.6.2010 and in the report Ex.C6 “Ileocaecal tuberculosis, advised, FNAC to rule out malignancy” was opined and advised. On the basis of said report, the op doctor prescribed medicines to the complainant for the disease of tuberculosis but thereafter complainant never visited op doctor alongwith report of FNAC to rule out malignancy as advised by Garg Diagnostic Center vide report Ex.C6 and preferred for going to Bikanker for further treatment where after various tests of complainant it was found that he was suffering from the disease of tumor in his abdomen. The complainant has not got conducted FNAC report to rule out malignancy (tumor) as per advise of Garg Diagnostic Centre given on 1.6.2010 and never visited op doctor rather preferred to go to Bikaner for further treatment where the actual disease after various tests conducted there was found. So, op doctor is not found negligent in any manner. Learned counsel for complainant at the time of arguments has placed on file affidavit of Dr. R.K. Kaja (M.S) P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner (Rajasthan) but said affidavit no where says that op doctor was at any fault or was negligent in any manner and does not extend any help to the complainant. According to the affidavit of said doctor, he was thoroughly medically checked up by the hospital authorities and he was found to be suffering from the disease of cancer in his abdomen and there was no T.B disease to the complainant. He was suffering from the disease of cancer for the last one year from the date of admission in the said hospital. Various tests of the complainant were got conducted at Bikaner and it was found that he was suffering from tumor but as mentioned above the said test was also recommended at Sirsa but complainant after getting medicines from the op doctor which were also prescribed on the basis of test report did not visit again either with report of FNAC or for further treatment. The op doctor prescribed medicines to the complainant only for one time for tuberculosis for 15 days which were also prescribed on the basis of report Ex.C6 and complainant has failed to prove that his treatment was continued by op doctor for disease of T.B and therefore, op no.1 cannot be said to be negligent in any manner.
8. 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 after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 23.1.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
