BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 201 of 2016                                                                        

                                                           Date of Institution         :    22.8.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    28.9.2017.

Kamlesh Kumar son of Sh. Bhura Ram, R/o Gaushala Mohalla, Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Dr. R.K. Jain, Orthopedic and Multi Specialty Hospital, Opp. R.S.D. School Dabwali Road Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vide policy No.272200/48/2016/26120 w.e.f. 30.3.2016 to 29.3.2017 vide which the said hospital is insured through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             ...…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. S.L. Sidhu,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. J.D. Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant was suffering from back pain, therefore, he visited the hospital of op doctor on 9.4.2016. The op doctor after medical check up of the complainant asked him that a vein below the back has been pressed and advised him that there is a course of three injections and each injection is of Rs.1800/- i.e. the total course is for Rs.5400/- and after taking this course of three injections, there will be no back pain to the complainant and same will be removed. It is further averred that on the aforesaid assurance and advise of the op, the complainant became ready for the said course. As per the directions of the op, the complainant got the three injections within 15 days period. The op had also asked the complainant for getting x-ray for the said disease and he charged Rs.300/- for the same and also received Rs.450/- as OPD fee for three times visit. Besides this, the complainant had also spent Rs.1500/- on medicines as prescribed by the op. It is further averred that after completion of the above said full course, the complainant did not get any relief from the above said painful problem, therefore, he again visited the op and told about it. Then the op doctor again advised the complainant to take medicines for five days more. The complainant took the medicines for further five days but he did not get any relief from pain. Then the complainant again visited the op doctor but op doctor instead of attending him as his patient misbehaved with him and ousted him from his hospital forcibly. The complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.7650/- from the op doctor which he has charged from the complainant wrongly and illegally. That the complainant again met the op doctor and requested him to return the abovesaid amount but to no effect. The complainant got issued a legal notice upon the op but of no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, op doctor appeared through counsel and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that patient came to the op with a complaint of lower back pain for which he was treated diligently, prudently, with utmost due care and caution. No guarantee, warrantee or any assurance was ever given to the patient. After this patient lost to follow up and never came back. The op has given proper treatment according to patient’s complaints and symptoms without any negligence according to the medical norms as prescribed in text book Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedic Vol. Four, Page 3293. It is further submitted that complaint is an abuse of process of law since it is uncalled for and that the litigation was indulged for no rhyme or reason just to harass the op.

3.                OP no.2 on being impleaded as party appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant is required to prove his case by leading cogent and consisting evidence. The answering op has not received any information from the insured which is a sheer violation of the policy, in any eventuality the answering op cannot be held liable at any point of time. The policy issued by answering op known as professional indemnity doctors policy is under limited liability i.e. too subject to certain terms and conditions laid down in the policy.

4.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of prescription slip Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, copy of reminder/ legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and acknowledgments Ex.C6, Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1, reply to legal notice Ex.R2, copy of prescription slip Ex.R3, copies of certificate of his qualification Ex.R4 to R10. OP no.2 produced affidavit Ex.RW2/A and policy schedule Ex.R11.

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

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant was suffering from back pain and he visited hospital of op doctor on 9.4.2016. After medical check up, it was asked by doctor that a vein below the back has been pressed and that there is course of three injections and each injection is of cost of Rs.1800/- and even after taking course of three injections he did not get any relief. Then the complainant was asked for getting x-ray and he charged Rs.300/- and also charged Rs.450/- as OPD charges for three times visit. The complainant also spent Rs.1500/- on medicines but even after availing full course, the complainant did not get any relief, behavior of the doctor was also not good with the complainant. The complainant had met with the op doctor and requested for return of the above said amount of Rs.7650/- which he refused to pay.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that present complaint is unsustainable in the eyes of law. No specific, scientific and justified allegations with regard to negligence or deficiency in services has been made by the complainant against the op doctor. The present complaint has only been filed with malafide intention to harass the op. The complainant was treated by op doctor diligently, prudently and with utmost due care and caution. No guarantee or warranty or any assurance was given to the complainant and the complainant lost follow up and never came back. The op doctor has given proper treatment according to patient’s complaint and without any negligence according to the medical norms as prescribed in text book Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedic Vol. Four, Page 3293.

8.                We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The perusal of the record reveal that in order to prove his complaint, the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also placed on record copy of prescription slip Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, copy of reminder/ legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and acknowledgments Ex.C6, Ex.C7. The perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveal that complainant neither in his complaint nor in his affidavit has uttered a single word qua the negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite party no.1 while treating the complainant. Further more, the complainant has not proved in his evidence that treatment given by op doctor was not as per medical norms nor he has deposed in his affidavit that treatment given by doctor was not required or he gave treatment in order to grab money from the complainant. On the other hand, in order to prove his defence plea, the doctor Rajesh Kumar Jain has furnished his affidavit Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in his reply and also placed on record reply to legal notice Ex.R2 which was sent by him through counsel Sh. Manav Goyal, Advocate. He has also produced copy of prescription slip as Ex.R3 and copies of certificates qua his qualifications as Ex.R4 to Ex.R10. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant as well as evidence of the ops that op doctor was neither negligent nor there was any deficiency in service on the part of doctor.

9.                In view of above, the complaint appears to be devoid of any merit 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:28.09.2017.                          Member                  Member      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                Redressal Forum, Sirsa.