BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 135 of 2012.
Date of Institution : 16.07.2012
Date of Decision : 26.10.2016.
Mohan Singh son of Shri Gamdoor Singh son of Shri Dalip Singh, aged 30 years, resident of village Tilokewala, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Dr. Raj Kumar Garg, BAMS, Near Sahara Club, Model Town Kalanwali, Tehsil & Distt. Sirsa.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 54 Janpath Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 presently at 60 Janpath Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 through its Branch Manager, Insurer of the complainant through professional Indemnity Insurance Policy bearing No. 040100/46/11/00006094 effective from 25.1.2012 to 24.1.2013.
...…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. B.S. Gill, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.K. Monga, Advocate for Opposite party no.1.
Sh.Kapil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that opposite party is BAMS doctor and he is running his hospital in Kalanwali under the name and style of Rohtak Bawasir Hospital, Kalanwali. The complainant was suffering from ailment of Boil on left side of his back due to which he was having serious pain. The complainant visited the op on 24.3.2012 for his treatment and after checking the said boil, he got admitted him in the hospital and started his treatment. On the same day, opposite party operated the boil and assured that same has been finished and complainant will get relief from the said disease and was discharged on 25.3.2012. The op received Rs.5,000/- for operation charges from the complainant and besides it, he paid huge amount for the medicines during operation and treatment. However, he could not get relief because pain remained continue and due to this reason, he could not sleep for many days. Even then, the complainant visited the op after 25.3.2012 almost daily and stated to him that pain has not been finished. The op assured for permanent relief from the said disease and gave tablets and injection to him from time to time. Then on 18.4.2012, the op again operated the said boil for which he received Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and he spent huge amount on medicines and injection etc. However, even after second operation, he could not get any relief and pain remained continue and upon his visit to op, he gave him costly medicines but all in vain. Again on 3.5.2012, op operated him thrice and at that time, he charged Rs.15,000/- from him and he also spent huge amount on medicines. However, when the complainant did not get any relief after three operations and several visits to the opposite party after three operations also, he was even misbehaved by the opposite party. Then finding no alternate, the complainant visited Sidhu Nursing Home, Sirsa and doctor checked the complainant and told that he has not been given proper treatment and even operations have also not been conducted properly and due to this reason serious allergy and side effects have been created which will cause harm to his body. Doctor Sidhu advised immediate operation for which he demanded Rs.30,000/- from him. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- as operation charges to the opposite party and also spent huge amount of more than Rs.10,000/- for medicines, injections etc. but inspite of it, he could not get any result. The op is a BAMS doctor and cannot conduct operation and therefore, he has committed criminal offence and is liable to be punished under the provisions of Criminal Law. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest @2% per month from 23.4.2012 and also to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for harassment etc. and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. On notice, Opposite party no.1 appeared and contested the case by filing written statement asserting therein that Mohan Singh was suffering from ailment of boil on left side of his back due to which he was suffering serious pain. The complainant came to the hospital of op on 24.3.2012 and after examination, he advised him to cure his problem by Kshar Sutra and after due consent from the patient treated his fistula with Kshar Sutra. Kshar sutra process is completed in two to five sittings. Hence, the complainant had to come to the op repeatedly after five days. The opposite party did not perform any surgical operation upon the complainant. It is denied that he charged fees again and again from the complainant. It is submitted that the whole treatment was given most diligently with due care and caution using highest degree of skill and in consonance with the medical line of treatment and no medical negligence or deficiency in service can be attributed to the opposite party. It is also asserted that answering op is insured with United India Insurance company. Rest of the allegations have also been denied.
3. On being impleaded as OP no.2 on the application of op No.1 and issuance of notice, United India Insurance Company Ltd. appeared and filed reply submitting therein that there is no proof of negligence on the part of op no.1 neither any expert opinion in this regard is placed on record. It is further submitted that no intimation of claim was given to the answering op no.2 by op no.1 which leads to violation of contract of insurance and complaint is liable to be dismissed qua op no.2. The op no.1 is a BAMS doctor and there is nothing on record to show that he is competent to perform surgical operation and it is violation of contract of insurance policy on the part of op no.1.
4. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1, copy of prescription slip of op no.1 Ex.CW1/A. copy of prescription slip of Sidhu Nursing Home Ex.CW1/B. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.RW1/A. OP no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of insurance policy Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. According to the opposite party no.1, he did not perform any surgical operation upon the complainant but advised him to cure his problem by Kshar Sutra and after due consent from the complainant treated his fistula with Kshar Sutra. Kshar Sutra process is completed in two to five sittings and therefore, the complainant had to come him repeatedly after five days. The remaining allegations of the complainant have been denied by him. In the prescription slip dated 24.3.2012, the name of disease of complainant is mentioned as “Fistula-in-Ano”. The complainant has not placed on file any receipt of the amounts alleged charged by the opposite party no.1 in support of his allegations. There is no report of Sidhu Nursing Home on the file to show that surgical operations have been conducted by the opposite party no.1 upon complainant and that complainant has not been treated properly by the opposite party no.1 and he caused any medical negligence. There is also no other expert/ medical opinion in this regard placed on file by the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Kalpana Ben and Ors. Vs. Dr. Kalpesh V. Parik and Anr. 2013 (1) CPJ 368 relied upon by learned counsel for op no.1 has held that “A BAMS Graduate can practice modern medicine alongwith traditional Ayurveda in India. Kshar Sutra treatment is a classical Ayurveda technique for operating almost all Ano Rectal Ailments like fissure fistula, haemarrhoids, per-anal abscess and various others. It has been proved that Kshar Sutra is more effective and more suitable treatment as compared to surgery for treating fistula-in-ano. A medical practitioner cannot be held liable merely because thing went wrong by mischance or misadventure or because of choosing on course in preference to another.”
7. Thus, in view of our above discussion and in view of above said law of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the considered opinion that complaint is without any merit and therefore, same 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: 26.10.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
