BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 173 of 2013.
Date of Institution : 27.09.2013
Date of Decision : 30.11.2016.
Hanuman aged 20 years son of Sh. Mahavir, resident of village Jodkiya, Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Dr. R.K. Kaswan, Kaswa Emergency Hospital, Nathusari Chopta, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
- United India Insurance Company Ltd., 60 Janpath, Cannaught Palace, New Delhi.
...…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. Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. B.L. Narula, 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 complainant was suffering from the disease of piles from six months and on the advise of Ram Sarup son of Sh. Udmi Ram, he alongwith said Ram Sarup and his father visited the hospital of opposite party no.1. After checking the complainant, the opposite party no.1 assured him that he is an expert doctor for the disease of piles and has done thousands of successful operations and he is a gold medalist in this field upon which complainant and his father believed him. On 22.6.2013, opposite party no.1 conducted operation of piles of the complainant and charged a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant for operation and medicines. However, the operation was not successful and blood started coming from anus and he suffered pain during whole night. When bleeding was not stopped with the medicines given by the opposite party, then op doctor assured the complainant that he will got treated the complainant from Ganga Hospital, Sirsa and will bear the expenses of the treatment. Accordingly, complainant was got admitted in Ganga Multispecialty Hospital on 24.6.2013 where doctor Ramesh Dudi treated the complainant up till 28.6.2013. Then Dr. Ramesh Dudi advised complainant for treatment from some experts doctor of Jaipur and discharged him on 28.6.2013. Accordingly, father of complainant took him to Jaipur on 29.6.2013 where he was treated up to 7.7.2013. It is also alleged by the complainant that being an Ayurvedic Doctor, opposite party is not competent to conduct any type of operation. As alleged, due to wrong operation by the opposite party, complainant suffered loss of Rs.3,50,000/- as treatment charges. It is further alleged that for further treatment, at least Rs.one lac are required more. The op no.2 which is insurer of op no.1 is also liable to pay the said amount to him. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 took the preliminary objections that complainant has not produced any expert opinion of any competent doctor/medical board in order to prove any medical negligence of op no.1. The complainant visited the op no.1 with the complaint of loose motions and blood discharge in passing stools and he was in great pain. On physical observation, it was found blood discharge alongwith fecal material on the rectum of complainant which indicated that the complaint was suffering from piles. The op no.1 also explained in detail about the problem to the complainant and gave him some pain killers to relieve the pain. He also advised him to consult a surgeon. The op no.1 has not committed any medical negligence or deficiency in service. The other contents of the complaint have also been denied. It has been further submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that op no.1 did not at all operate upon the complainant. The complainant had only met the op no.1 once and he advised him some pain killers. The op no.1 holds a degree in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and has certificate of practice from the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, Haryana and has also certificate of enrolment from Centre Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi.
3. Opposite party no.2 i.e. United India Insurance Company has averred in its written statement that no such operation was ever conducted by op no.1. However, op no.1 is a qualified Ayurvedacharya, who possesses the degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery and is competent to carry out surgery. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount from answering op as his claim is false one. The policy of insurance was issued subject to just all exceptions, terms and conditions as mentioned in the policy.
4. By way of evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.P1, copy of receipt of Rs.95000/- of Piles Clinic Ex.P2, copy of prescription slip of Ganga Multispecialty Hospital, Sirsa Ex.P3, copy of lab report Ex.P4, copy of prescription slip of Piles Clinic, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur Ex.P5, procedure of treatment of Piles Hospital Ex.P6, copy of prescription slip dated 29.6.2013 Ex.P7, histopathology report Ex.P8 and laboratory test reports Ex.P9 to Ex.P14. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of insurance policy Ex.R2. OP no.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.R3, extract of register of op no.1 Ex.R4 and copies of certificates Ex.R5 to R7.
5. Besides the above evidence, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has produced on file certified copy of statement of Dr. Ramesh Dudi recorded in the Court of Smt. Anuradha, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa in the complaint case titled as Hanuman Vs. Dr. R.K. Kaswan and another filed by complainant Hanuman under Sections 269/323/336/337/338/427/506/34 IPC and various bills of medicines purchased at the time of treatment from Jaipur.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has contended that if a doctor is negligent, compensation should be awarded to the sufferer and has prayed for acceptance of the complaint. In support, he has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in cases titled as Dr. Balram Prasad Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha and others, Civil Appeal No.2867 of 2012 decided on 24.10.2013 with other civil appeals, Bhanwar Kanwar Vs. R.K. Gupta and another, CA No.8660 of 2009 decided on 5.4.2013 and Alfred Benddict and another Vs. M/s. Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and others, CA No.7620 of 2014 decided on 11.8.2014.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties reiterated the averments of their reply. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has also contended that although opposite party no.1 has not conducted any operation upon the complainant but he holds a degree in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. He has also relied upon authority of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Kalpana Ben and Ors. Vs. Dr. Kalpesh V. Parik and Anr. 2013 (1) CPJ 368.
9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The main question to be determined in this complaint is whether there is any deficiency or negligence on the part of op-doctor in conducting the alleged treatment of the complainant. From the perusal of various documents including discharge summary of Piles Clinic, Jaipur Ex.P5, it is only reflected that patient gave history of operation over anus from some Ayurvedic doctor but complainant has not given the name of that doctor and there is nothing to prove that operation was conducted by op doctor. Moreover, op doctor denied to have conducted any operation of the complainant alleging that he only advised some pain killers with the suggestion to consult some Surgeon. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to suggest that OP doctor has conducted any operation upon the complainant. Only in document Ex.P4 which is a laboratory test report, medicines have been prescribed on the back side of that test report and operation has not been suggested. There is no document on the record to prove that complainant paid the amount of Rs.5000/- to the opposite party no.1 as alleged by him. The initial requirement to establish negligence of op doctor is to establish whether he has conducted any operation upon complainant but in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that op doctor has conducted any operation specially when as per version of op doctor he has not conducted any operation upon the complainant. Further more, in the treatments records of Ganga Hospital, Sirsa and Piles Clinic, Jaipur, there is no mention that opposite party no.1 was in any manner negligent in treatment. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for complainant relied upon above said certified copy of statement of Dr. Ramesh Dudi but from the perusal of that statement also, it is not proved that opposite party no.1 conducted operation upon complainant. As such, complainant has failed to prove his case and the authorities cited by learned counsel for complainant are not applicable in this case.
10. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and 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: 30.11.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
