Delhi

North

CC/332/2024

VAIBHAV AGNIHOTRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR SUSHMA AGGARWAL & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 332/2024

In the matter of

Vaibhav Agnihotri

S/o Satish Agnihotri

R/o House No.27, Swami Dayanand Enclave,

Kaushik Enclave Ext., Delhi-110084.                   ...       Complainant

Versus

Dr. Sushma Aggarwal

Shubham Hospital                                                ...       Opposite Party No. 1

Dr. Narender K. Aggarwal

Shubham Hospital                                                ...       Opposite Party No. 2

All at: DD-15, Kalkaji,

Opp. Main Post Office,

New Delhi, Delhi-110019

Prityn Care

Through its director,

Capital Cyberscape, Sector-59,

Gurugram Haryana-122102                         ...       Opposite Party No.3

Dr. Lalit Agrawal,

Shubham Hospital

At DD-15, Kalkaji,

Opp. Main Post Office,

New Delhi, Delhi-110019                           ...       Opposite Party No. 4

Shubham Hospital

At DD-15, Kalkaji,

Opp. Main Post Office

New Delhi, Delhi-110019

Through its MD                                          ...       Opposite Party No. 5

ORDER

22.08.2024

Present:       Shri Vineet Kumar, Ld. Advocate for Complainant

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant herein has alleged medical negligence on part of doctors namely Dr. Sushma Aggarwal (OP-1 herein), Dr. Narender K Aggarwal (OP-2 herein), Dr Lalit Aggarwal, (OP-4 herein); the hospital where he was treated upon namely M/s Shubham Hospital (OP-5 herein and M/s Prityn Care (OP-3 herein) which allegedly referred the Complainant to OP-5 Hospital.
2. At the very onset, it is noted that the name of the OP-3 is written differently at different places in the complaint. Name of OP-3 is written as Prityn Care in the memo of parties and in the address given in the legal notice sent on behalf of the Complainant; but in the body of the complaint and also in the body of the legal notice, OP-3 is identified and named as “Pristyn Care”.
3. In the complaint, the Complainant has alleged that OP-1 and OP-2 are the owners of OP-5 Hospital, but he has not filed any document to substantiate this claim. It is also alleged that OP-3 is stated to be a company to provide fair/ proper doctors to the patients.
4. The Complainant alleges that he is a music teacher and freelancer in music programmes. Sometimes in the month of June 2022, while playing musical instruments, he felt pain in both of his wrists. He also noticed a bump in the right wrist too. Hence, he contacted a local physician (neither named not made a party), who provisionally diagnosed the case of “ganglion cyst” in both his wrists and advised him to consult an orthopaedic surgeon. While searching for an orthopaedic surgeon, the Complainant allegedly came in contact with M/s Pristyn (Prityn), OP-3 herein, and he filled up the online form on the website of OP-3 on 02.08.2022. Thereafter, the Complainant was allegedly contacted by the representatives of OP-3. The Complainant states that he shared his problems with the OP-3 and shared his Aadhaar and insurance details with the OP-3. Thereafter, OP-3 allegedly referred the Complainant to Dr Lalit Aggarwal (OP-4) at Shubham Hospital (OP-5) for treatment. It is the case of the Complainant that he visited and met OP-4 doctor on 10^th September 2022. The Complainant alleges that the OP-4 Doctor, without conducting relevant tests, operated upon both of his wrists. The Complainant alleges that conducting surgery without conducting any test is medical negligence. It is also alleged by the Complainant that the Op-4 Doctor and OP-5 Hospital did not the test reports for the tests that they conducted despite the fact that the Complainant demanded the same.
5. It is also the vase of the Complainant that his cashless insurance claim was also rejected by the insurance company namely M/s ICICI Lombard (not a party). It is also alleged that once the cashless insurance claim was rejected, OP-5 Hospital reduced the bill from Rs. 76,258/- to 26,158/-. However, it is not clear from the pleading that whether Complainant paid the entire amount to the OP-5 Hospital or not. In the complaint, he has alleged that he had paid Rs. 1000/- to the OP-5 Hospital, and he has sought relief to recover the said amount only. There is no pleading regarding payment of the amount so raised by OP-5 Hospital through its bill. The Complainant has also not prayed for recovery of the said amount.
6. The Complainant alleges that after the surgery, both his wrists were damaged and he is facing issues in playing musical instruments. Hence, he has sought following relief:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that to this Hon'ble Forum would be pleased to:

i) Directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) to the complainant on account of loss of salary as the complainant was/is not working properly due to the illegal/false surgery conducted by the respondents;

ii) Direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs fifty thousands only) as damages and compensation for causing mental agony, harassment, wrongful confinement of the complainant and his family members in hospital and humillation suffered by the complainant and for having caused the deficiency in services and indulging into unfair trade practice;

iii) Summon the respondents and order them to refund the amount of Rs.1000/- which was received by the respondents from the complainant on account of the false/illegal surgery;

iv) Direct the respondents to pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith pendente-lite and future interest on the awarded amounts from the date of filing of the present application till actual realization to the complainant;

v) Award costs of the complaint in favour of the complainant and against the respondents, in the interest of justice;

vi) Pass any order, direction(s), instruction(s) etc. in favour of the complainant and against the respondents as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the complaint.”

7.   We have gone through the complaint and the documents filed by the Complainant. We have also heard the arguments of Shri Vineet Kumar, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.
8. In the complaint, the Complainant has raised multiple issues. In the consumer complaint, only one issue can be raised. The Complainant cannot raise multiple issues in the same complaint. In the case in hand, the Complainant has raised issues of (i) medical negligence on part of doctors, (ii) not allowing cashless insurance claim by Insurance Company and (iii) unfair trade practice on part of OP-5 Hospital by way of reducing the bill amount after cashless insurance claim was denied. It is a settled position that for different issues and cause of action, different complaints must be filed, although all these issues and cause of action have a common starting point. Filing a common complaint against different lis against different OPs will not only create confusion, but will also waste the judicial time of this Commission.
9. In the In this context, we would like to point out that Hon’ble National Commission in a number of cases has taken the same view that the Complainant is required to file separate complaint for different cause of action/ different issues. Some of the cases decided by Hon’ble National Commission on this aspect are as under:

1. Future Generali vs Harinder Udairaj Singh [Revision Petition No. 3592/ 2016 decided on January 10, 2020]
2. Jatinder Kaur vs Jayprakash Associates [Consumer Case No. 1095 Of 2017, Decided on May 5, 2017]
3. Ramesh Goyal vs Vatika [Consumer Case No. 615 of 2015, Decided on December 14, 2016]

10. Even on merits, the Complainant has not placed on record any medical records of subsequent treatment or otherwise that the procedure conducted by the OP-4 Doctor was not a recognised and proper procedure or acceptable practice to conduct the treatment and surgery of Ganglion Cyst. Further there is no medical record or subsequent treatment record to suggest that the Complainant is still facing the same issue and the treatment and operation led by the OP-4 Doctor caused the subsequent problem to the Complainant. There may be availability of better alternatives, but selection of another alternative by the treating doctor cannot be termed as medical negligence. There is no guaranteed treatment of any ailment in medical science. If there is any allegation of medical negligence; merely no relief after treatment/ surgery is not sufficient to substantiate the allegation. The Complainant must plead and substantiate his allegation of medical negligence with records and appropriate medical literatures. In this context, reliance is placed on the recent judgment of  Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Shri balaji Action Medical Institute vs Tilak Raj [FA No. 1882/2018, decided on 12.07.2024].
11. On the allegation of reducing the medical bills, it is not clear from the pleadings that whether the Complainant made the payment of the bill or not. In the complaint, the Complainant has also alleged fraud on part of Ops. If there is any allegation of fraud, the Consumer Commission is not the proper forum to adjudicate the issues. In this context, we rely on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Capital Charitable & Education vs Axis Bank Limited [CC No.269 of 2017 decided on 09/12/2019].
12. Further, as the insurance company is not a party to this complaint, the allegation of denial of cashless facility by the insurance company cannot be adjudicated upon. For adjudication on the said issue, the insurance company is a necessary party.
13. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the technical issue of multiplicity of issues raised in the singular complaint as well as on the ground of lack of merits. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed on both these grounds. No costs.
14. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties in accordance with the rules. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member