BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 84 of 2012.
Date of Institution : 30.4.2012
Date of Decision : 2.9.2016.
Jayesh Aneja minor son of Sh. Krishan Gopal son of Sh. Jiwan Ram through Krishan Gopal son of Shri Jiwan Ram as next friend and father, resident of Talwara Khurd, Tehsil Ellenabad, Distt. Sirsa, at present House No.93, A-Block Street UCO Bank Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Dr. Y.K. Choudhary, MBBS, D-Ortho, Choudhary Orthopadic and General Hospital, Nandan Vatika, Ambedkar Chowk, Near Aggarsain Park, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
2. Oriental Insurance Company, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa through its Branch Manager, Sirsa (Impleaded as a party to this complaint vide order dated 27.5.2014).
...…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. Anil Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Jagwant Singh, Advocate for Opposite party no.1.
Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by Jayesh Aneja minor through his father Shri Krishan Gopal as next friend. In brief, case of the complainant is that on 6.2.2012 at about 9.15 a.m., when the complainant who was studying in 1st class in St. Xavier High School, Sirsa at that time was in his school, his little finger of right hand came in a door due to which he suffered a crush injury on his little finger. The father of the complainant, who is posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Commerce at Govt. National College, Sirsa after receiving a telephonic message from the School Administration, reached the school at 9.30 a.m. and by that time no first aid was provided to the complainant. He immediately taken the complainant to the hospital of op no.1 where a number of other patients were also waiting for their turn. The complainant’s father requested the op no.1 to start treatment of the complainant as he was crying due to pain but doctor did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant’s father. Thereafter, he agreed to attend the complainant after repeated requests and in annoyance he applied stitches in hurry and bandaged the wounds and assured that now it would be all right for which the op no.1 charged a sum of Rs.1000/- from the complainant’s father and Rs.350/- for medicines etc. But op no.1 did not give any receipt or bill and asked the complainant to come after one week for removal of stitches. The complainant took treatment from Dr. Y.K. Choudhary as was advised and instructed by him but he did not get any relief from the constant pain, therefore on 9.2.2012 he was again taken to hospital of op no.1 for check-up and that time also the op no.1 assured that the wound was healing and after two-three days the stitches would be removed and he gave some tablets of pain killer but the pain was continue. Then again the complainant was taken to op no.1 on 12.2.2012 and op no.1 after seeing the said injury stated that the condition of the injured finger has deteriorated and there is no other option but to cut the finger from the middle and asked for taking the complainant to Dr. Swapnil at Ganga Hospital, Sirsa for further consultation. Hearing this, the complainant’s father got shock and he asked the op no.1 that why he had been deceiting them when he knew that the said injury is incurable to which the op no.1 replied that “this is the hospital not a charity”. We, the doctors have to do these things for running our hospitals this is part and parcel of our profession and you can take your child wherever you want.” Thereafter, the complainant’s father contacted Dr. Swapnil, where he after preliminary examination advised the complainant’s father that the said injury had developed a gangrene and it will have to be amputated to which the complainant’s father did not agree. Then on 13.2.2012, the complainant’s father took him to Medanta the Medicity Hospital at Gurgaon, where the doctor on duty after seeing the injury stated that due to the wrong treatment and tight sultuing it had developed a gangrene upto the middle of the finger and it had become dried and shriveled. On the next day, the doctor Rakesh Kumar amputated the injured finger from the middle of it by an operation, on which the complainant’s father had to incur heavy amount to the tune of Rs.42,260/- and other charges and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was incurred by him on transporation, follow up treatmenet etc. It is further averred that complainant has to suffer unnecessary pain, agony, harassment, hardship, mental stress, anxiety and displeasure only due to gross negligence on the part of op no.1 while treating the injured finger of the complainant which he did with the sole aim of making money only. Due to the wrong treatment given by him, the complainant has been rendered as handicapped at his tender years of age and now he will not be able to use his right hand to the full extent throughout his life. Although, no amount of compensation can make good the loss of limb suffered by the complainant, yet by accepting this complaint and awarding compensation to the complainant, a lesson can be taught to such unscrupulous doctors. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Opposite party no.1 appeared and contested the case by filing reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi and cause of action; estoppal; and jurisdiction etc. It is submitted that complainant Jayesh Aneja minor son of Sh. Krishan Gopal came to his hospital on 6.2.2012 as little finger of his right hand came in a door due to which he suffered a crush injury on his said little finger. Father of the complainant wanted to get him treated by op no.1. Being doctor the answering op attended the complainant with no loss of time. The complainant suffered a crush injury and op no.1 treated the injured soon after he reached the hospital without any delay on priority being child. He was examined properly with full care and caution and applied the stitches and bandages. The patient was properly diagnosed, medicines were prescribed as per medical norms and as per line of treatment. The op no.1 has no concern or relation with the medical bill. The op no.1 advised the complainant’s father to bring the patient again in hospital after three days for follow up treatment. It is absolutely wrong that a sum of Rs.1350/- was charged by him. No such amount was charged from the complainant’s father and in that event the question of grant of any receipt or bill does not arise at all. It is wrong that he advised the complainant to visit the hospital after one week. The patient visited the hospital of op no.1 on 9.2.2012 alongwith his mother instead of his father and all complications and consequences were disclosed to the mother of the patient and on her request and after careful examination medicines were prescribed as per medical norms. The patient also came to the hospital on 12.2.2012. It is incorrect that op no.1 asked the complainant that the condition of finger had become deteriorated and there is no other option but to cut the finger. In fact the patient was referred to Dr. Swapnil Garg at Ganga Hospital, Sirsa for consultation because he is a plastic surgeon. A proper advise has been given. In fact on the date of first visit to the hospital of op no.1 on 6.2.2012, all future consequences and complications were disclosed to the father of the complainant because the patient was having a crush injury and the vessels of the finger were in damaged condition. The op no.l performed his duties to the best of his ability and with care and caution and with due diligence. The complainant is a child of age of 6 years and it appears that no proper care has been taken by the parents of the complainant at their home and the injured finger might have struck with any hard surface or he might have received some injury on the same place and due to this reason, complication developed. In the report of Medanta Medicity Hospitals, the doctor no where stated that the treating doctor at Sirsa was negligent in treating the patient. All other contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. It has been also been submitted that the nursing home of op no.1 is insured with Oriental Insurance Company Sirsa branch and as such said insurance company is a necessary and proper party to the complaint. Liability if any is to be indemnified by the said insurance company. Therefore, said insurance company was impleaded as opposite party no.2.
4. Upon notice, opposite party no.2 contested the complaint by filing written statement. It has been submitted that answering op is not liability to indemnify the op no.1, as no information regarding present complaint has ever been supplied by op no.1 to the answering op despite the contractual obligation to inform the company immediately. Hence, there is violation of terms and conditions. Otherwise, liability is limited to the extent of Rs.10 lacs only for any accident. There is no report of expert Committee as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court showing and proving the negligence on the part of doctor. However, if doctor had committed the wrong with sole aim of making money as alleged, then answering op has no liability as intent of doctor was not a professional one, rather was a business intent only and policy issued was for professional indemnity only.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavits of Sh. Krishan Gopal as Ex.CW1/A and Ex.C1, medical records Ex.C2 to Ex.C6, receipts of Medanta Hospital as Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, attested copies of annual report card of complainant as Ex.C9 top Ex.C11. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A, prescription slip dated 6.2.2012 Ex.R3, and copy of report of Mamta Clinical Laboratory, Sirsa as Ex.R4. Opposite party no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. S.K. Madan, Divisional Manager as Ex.R1, and policy schedule as Ex.R2.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. There is no dispute that the complainant Jayesh was given treatment by the opposite party no.1 on 6.2.2012 i.e. applied stitches and bandaged the wounds when complainant suffered a crush injury on his little finger of his right hand. Then he remained under follow up treatment with the opposite party no.1 on 9.2.2012 and on 12.2.2012. The complainant has alleged negligence in the treatment given by opposite party no.1 which resulted into amputation of his finger due to gangrene. Whereas the opposite party no.1 has claimed that he treated the patient with due diligence, care and caution. There is nothing on file to prove that any negligence has been committed by the treating doctor i.e. opposite party no.1 while treating the complainant. The complainant claims that he was also checked up by Dr. Swapnil Garg who told that condition of the finger is deteriorated and finger has to be amputated but no such prescription/ medical advise of said doctor has been placed on file by the complainant. The complainant has not shown anything on file that said doctor opined that opposite party no.1 was negligent in treating the complainant. The amputation of the finger of the complainant has been done at Medanta the Medicity Hospital at Gurgaon but in the medical record of that hospital available on file, there is nothing to show that Dr. Y.K.Choudhary i.e. opposite party no.1 was negligent in treating the complainant which resulted into amputation. There is no opinion of any expert on the file that opposite party no.1 who is a bachelor of medicine and surgery and is also Diploma holder in Orthopaedics and is practicing as a doctor has given wrong treatment.
8. Keeping in view the abovesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that as the complainant has failed to prove any record that the opposite party treated him wrongly, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation etc.
9. Resultantly, present complaint of the complainant stands 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: 2.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
