BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 135 of 2016                                                                         

                                                              Date of Institution         :     23.05.2016                                                                           

                                                             Date of Decision   :           30.05.2019.

Charanjeet Singh, aged about 46 years son of Shri Shamsher Singh, resident of village Sahuwala-Ist, Tehsil & District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. Satpal Narula, Astha Hospital, Multi Specialty and Trauma Centre, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

2. Dr. Rakesh Jindal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Mansa (Punjab).

3. The Oriental India Insurance Company Ltd. 4E/14 Azad Bhawan Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi-110055 vide Professional Indemnity bearing Insurance Policy No.272200/48/2016/14592, effective from 21.10.2015 to 20.10.2016.

...…Opposite parties.

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

Before:        SHRI R.L. AHUJA…………………….. PRESIDENT                                       

                       SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ………MEMBER                                         

                   MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………….MEMBER   

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

Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

Sh. J.D. Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, Advocate for the opposite party no.3.

ORDER

                                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 11.1.2016, he met with an accident and sustained fracture, therefore, he was brought to the hospital of OP No.1, where he was advised for x-ray and some tests. It is further averred that after receiving the report, the op No.1 assured the complainant that he is having specialist doctors and rod is to be erected in the leg of complainant due to serious fracture in the leg. The op directed the complainant to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- for conducting operation, which was got deposited by the complainant in the hospital. After depositing the above said amount, the op conducted the operation of the leg of complainant and instead of erecting rod, he had erected plate in the leg of complainant. The Op No.1 had also not issued any bill despite the fact that the OP No.1 had received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant for treatment, hospitalization charges, visit fees, operation and for medicines etc. The complainant was discharged by the OP No.1 with advice for routine checkup and to take medicines as per his advice from time to time. The complainant took medicine as per advice of the op but despite that he suffered serious pain in his leg. It has been further averred that after some time, the leg of the complainant got again fractured due to improper operation conducted by the op as the Op no.1 had no specialist doctor in his hospital and due to wrong operation, complainant suffered serious pain and abscess/pus. The op doctor has advised the complainant for amputation of his legal, otherwise the complainant will die due to serious pus in the leg. Under the compelling circumstances, the complainant took treatment from Badyal Multi Specialty Hospital and Trauma Centre Bhatinda and spent more than Rs.3 lac and it all happened due to negligence on behalf of the Ops , therefore, the complainant requested the Ops for compensation but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply submitted that the whole treatment was done by Dr.Rakesh Jindal, who has shifted to Fortis Hospital Mohali in January, 2016. The complainant was suffering from serious fracture of femur in an accident and accordingly a surgery by way of plating was done on 11.01.2016, which is the most accepted method for treating such types of fracture. The patient was discharged on 17.01.2016 with a direction to follow up but the complainant did not turn up thereafter. There is no expert opinion on the case file to show any negligence on the part of Ops. The complainant has filed the present complaint on the vague and false allegations as he was never advised for amputation of his leg. The complainant was suffering from grade one fracture of the supracondyler right femur with extension into shaft.  The complainant was also a patient of uncontrolled diabetes and hyper tension, therefore, the complainant requires long treatments for avoiding infections. The treating doctor of the hospital has done the treatment of the complainant as per the medical norms. It is further submitted that Dr. Rakesh Jindal who had treated the patient was well qualified surgeon in orthopedic and the hospital is well equipped with the operation equipments and operations theaters and all types of after operation care was provided to the complainant. There is no such record on the case file that Dr.Badyal   has given any option that there was a wrong treatment of the complainant. It is further submitted that it is incorrect that complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- for operation and it is also incorrect that hospital demanded further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant. Other allegations have been controveted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                Op No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as there was no negligence on the part of replying Op. On 11.01.2016, he received a call from emergency department of Aastha Hospital to attend patient Charanjit Singh, with history of road side accident. The patient was diagnosed with open fracture suproacondyler femur (Thigh Bone) right side with extension into shaft of femur and even the patient was known case of uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension for which medical opinion was sought. Patient was operated for same under spinal anesthesia. Toileting, debridement, open reduction and internal fixation with distal femoral locking plate was done diligently and prudently with due care and caution. Surgery was uneventful. He was discharged on 17.01.2016 on oral medications with advice to continue his treatment for diabetes and hypertension. On 20.1.2016, patient came to hospital for follow up but there was no fresh complaint. On wound inspection, there was blood stained discharge which was sent for culture and sensitivity examination. Patient was sent back with parentral antibiotics and was advised for follow up but patient did not come back to op no.2 till 31.1.2016. After this patient lost to follow up and never came back. The replying Op had treated the complainant diligently, prudently with utmost due care and caution. It is further submitted that patient has not paid any money directly to op no.2 and money was charged by hospital administration. No doctor at anywhere has pointed out any negligence on the part of op no.2. Everything had happened due to the original trauma and its subsequent problems, for which complainant himself is responsible.  There was no negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op. It is also submitted that op no.2 was duly insured with Oriental India Insurance Company Ltd. with effect from 21.10.2015 to 20.10.2016. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                Op No.3 in its reply submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. The liability of the answering Op is to indemnify the insured and that too subject to certain terms and conditions of the policy. As per information, the complainant was diagnosed with open fracture supercondyler femur (Thigh Bone) Right side with extension into shaft of femur and the complainant was advised open reduction and fixation with distal femoral plate. The complainant was a known case of uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension. The complainant was operated upon by the doctor with due care and caution. The complainant was admitted in the hospital and discharged on 17.01.2016 on oral medicines. On 20.01.2016, the patient came to the hospital for follow-up with no fresh complaint. On wound inspection, there was blood stained discharged, which was sent for culture and sensitivity examination and he was sent back with parental antibiotics and was advised for follow-up but thereafter, the complainant never visited Op No.2. It is no consumer dispute between the complainant and answering Op, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of replying Op.  Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.

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

7.                Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved case of complainant that complainant met with an accident on 11.1.2016 and he received fracture injury. He was taken to hospital of op no.1 where he was attended by Dr. Satpal Narula and Dr. Rajnish Narula his son. The op conducted the operation of the leg of complainant and instead of erecting rod, the op has erected plate in the legal of complainant. The op refused to issue the receipt even after charging Rs.1,50,000/- and in the entire treatment, they had charged Rs.3,00,000/- from complainant on account of hospitalization charges, visit fees, operation and for medicines etc. After operation he was discharged but after some time leg of complainant again got fractured due to improper operation of complainant because op has no specialist doctor in the hospital and due to wrong operation, complainant suffered pain and abscess/pus, then the op-doctor advised the complainant for amputation of his leg. That due to deteriorated condition, he was taken to Badyal Multi Specialty Hospital and Trauma Centre, Bathinda and he spent Rs.3,00,000/- there and the doctors of that hospital asked the complainant that due to wrong treatment and operation conducted by ops, the leg of complainant suffered serious pus and under compelling circumstances he was pressurized to get his treatment from Bathinda where he spent huge amount of more than Rs.3,00,000/- and he is still under treatment. The complainant is entitled for compensation due to wrong operation and not issuing the receipts and for mental harassment and torture and he has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Shoda Devi vs. DDU/ Ripon Hospital Shimla and others, CA No.2557 of 2019 decided on 7.3.2019.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that whole treatment was done by Dr. Rakesh Jindal who was working in their hospital at that time and now he has been shifted to some another hospital The complainant was brought in their hospital while suffering from severe fracture and accordingly surgery by way of plating was done which is most expected method. He was discharged on 17.1.2016 with a direction for follow up treatment but complainant did not turn up thereafter. Dr. Rakesh Jindal who has treated patient was well qualified surgeon in orthopedic and the hospital is well equipped with the operation equipments and operations theatres and all types of after operation care was provided to the complainant and there was no negligence of deficiency in service of treating doctor and the hospital.

9.                Learned counsel for op no.2 has strongly contended that there is no negligence or deficiency in service in providing services to the complainant by op no.2. The complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not led any evidence of any medical expert that there was any negligence on the part of op no.2 during operation nor the complainant has led any other evidence from which it could be presumed that there was any kind of negligence on the part of op no.2. The op no.2 conducted the operation as per medical norms and there is no lapse on his part rather complainant is patient of uncontrolled diabetes which may be the cause of his long treatment and relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Vinod Jain vs. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital and another, CA No.2024 of 2019 decided on 25.2.2019.

10.              Learned counsel for insurance company op no.3 has also contended that since there is no evidence against ops no.1 and 2 that they were negligent while conducting operation on the person of complainant and in treatment given by them, as such there is no liability of insurance company to reimburse any loss.

11.              We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record as well as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for complainant and op no.2.

12.              The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case had furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A dated 6.4.2017 in which he has deposed  and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. Thereafter, again an affidavit Ex.CW1/B dated 9.4.2018 was furnished after impleding ops no.2 and 3 as parties in which he has also deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. In support of his allegations, complainant has also tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C33.

13.              On the other hand, op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Dr. Satpal Narula Ex.R1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the written statement. He has deposed that Astha Hospital is a multi-specialty hospital and the hospital has not been deficient in its services in any way. Dr. Rakesh Jindal was MS Orthopedics who was working as Orthopedic Surgeon in the hospital and had treated the complainant by way of conducting the surgery. The complainant was suffering from serious fracture of femur in accident and accordingly a surgery by way of plating was done on 11.1.2016, which is the most accepted method for treating such types of fracture. The patient was discharged on 17.1.2016 with direction for follow up treatment but the complainant did not turn up thereafter. There is no such expert opinion by any doctor, showing any negligence on the part of treating doctor Rakesh Jindal or the hospital. The op no.1 has also tendered copy of indoor file as Ex.R2. Dr. Rakesh Jindal op no.2 has also tendered his affidavit Ex.R3 in which he has deposed that he is well qualified and reputed doctor with substantial good will and experience of long standing successful medical practice. On 11.1.2016 complainant was brought to Astha Hospital with alleged history of road side accident and this was because of the sole negligence of the patient. Patient was known case of uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension and his medical opinion regarding diabetes and hypertension was sought and thereafter patient was operated for same under spinal anesthesia. Toileting, debridement, open reduction and internal fixation with distal femoral locking plate was done diligently, prudently with due care and caution and surgery was uneventful. The patient was kept admitted and was discharged on 17.1.2016 on oral medications. Patient was advised to continue his treatment for diabetes and hypertension. He came to hospital on 20.1.2016 for follow up and there was no fresh complaint. On wound inspection, there was blood stained discharge which was sent for culture and sensitivity examination. Patient was sent back with parentral antibiotics and was advised for follow up but patient did not come back till he was there i.e. up to 31.1.2016. He has also tendered documents Ex.R4 and Ex.R5.  Op no.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R6.

14.              It is an admitted fact on record that on 11.1.2016 complainant was brought in the hospital of op no.1 with accidental injuries and after receiving report from the laboratory, operated was conducted on the leg of complainant by op no.2 and plate was erected and thereafter he was discharged on 17.1.2016. Again he came to the hospital on 20.1.2016 for follow up treatment. As per allegations of complainant, they paid Rs.1,50,000/- to op no.1 but they did not issue receipt and thereafter he paid Rs.1,50,000/- more but no receipt was issued. The complainant has not placed on record any document, any copy of complaint or application moved by complainant to any authority against op no.1 regarding non issuance of receipts. Nor complainant has produced on record any affidavit of any other person in whose presence this amount was paid and receipt was demanded which was not issued. So, this plea of complainant appears to be devoid of any merit.

15.              The second plea of the complainant is that operation was conducted by a non specialized doctor and it was wrong operation as a result of which complainant suffered serious pain and pus and then op doctor advised for amputation of his leg. It was legal obligation of the complainant to prove allegations against the ops. Though complainant has furnished his affidavit in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and tendered certain documents. But the perusal of the evidence of op no.1 reveals that Dr. Rakesh Jindal who conducted operation on the leg of complainant is a qualified orthopedic surgeon which is evident from his affidavit Ex.R3 and documents of his qualification Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 who is MS in surgery. The complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion of doctors of Badyal Hospital, Bathinda who treated the complainant after getting treatment from Astha Hospital at Sirsa that operation conducted by the doctor at Astha Hospital was wrong or there was any negligence of treating doctor who conducted operation on the person of complainant. The complainant has not placed on record opinion/ affidavit of any other doctor who attended to the complainant there while treating him from the last more than two years that doctor who conducted operation for the first time and erected plate in his leg was negligent in any manner. The complainant has produced discharge summary of Badyal Hospital, Bathinda which does not find even a single word against Dr. Rakesh Jindal qua his any alleged act of negligence. Similarly, he has produced the discharge summary of Arora Hospital, Hisar and PGI, Chandigarh but there is no mention of any medical negligence. Even in the complaint, the complainant has not uttered a single word that treating doctor Rakesh Jain was negligent in any manner while conducting operation on his person or in the follow up treatment for which he visited hospital on 20.1.2016. So, it appears that complainant has failed to lead any cogent evidence against the ops that ops no.1 and 2 were negligent in their services provided to the complainant while conducting operation on the leg of complainant as well as in the follow up treatment given to the complainant. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for complainant in case titled as Shoda Devi vs. DDU/ Ripon Hospital Shimla and others (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in that case due to the complications that had arisen in regard to the arm of the appellant, which could not be handled by the team of doctors at DDU Hospital, she was shifted to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla and ultimately her right arm above the elbow was amputated due to negligence of the doctors. But in the present case there are allegations of complainant that payment receipt was not issued and wrong operation was conducted but there is no opinion of any of the medical expert that wrong operation was conducted rather it is proved on record that complainant is a patient of chronic uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension and further complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of ops. Rather we find force from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for op no.2 in case titled as Vinod Jain Vs. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital and anr. (supra) in which it was observed that there was no evidence to show any unexplained deviation from standard protocol. In the present case also, there is nothing on file to show that method adopted by op no.2 was against the medical norms and that op no.2 did not adopt standard protocol.

16.              In view of 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.                

Announced in open Forum.  Member         Member      President,

Dated: 30.5.2019.                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa