Consumer Case No CC/18/246

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Consumer Case No. CC/18/246

         Registered on. 17/12/2018

         Decided on.     13/04/2023

                      Shri. Rajaram Ganpat Kavatkar

                      Age – 78 yr, Occupation – Agriculture

                     R/o Tuptakli, Tal. Digras

                     Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal

                                                                                 ..... Complainant

   Versus

                    1.  Dr. Amar M. Gadda

                        Gadda Hospital, Shivaji Chowk,

     Pusad Road, Digras, Dist. Yavatmal

2.  United India Insurance Company Ltd.

     Laxmi Sadan, Near Panjab National Bank,

     Mahajanwadi, Tal.& Dist. Yavatmal.

   ..... Opponent

Before

                    Hon’ble Shri Nandkumar M. Waghmare, President

                    Hon’ble Shri Hemraj L. Thakur, Member

Appearances

Adv. B.V.Thakre, For complainant

Adv. S.A. Varma, For Opponent No.1  

Adv. Deepak Sakhre, For Opponent No.2

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on  13/04/2023)

Hon’ble President Shri Nandkumar M. Waghmare

1. This is a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  seeking compensation for medical negligence of the opponent.

2. The Complainant’s case in nutshell is that :-

The complainant is running at the age of 78 years. He is resident of Tuptakari, taluka Digras, Dist. Yavatmal. The opponent No. 1 is an orthopedic doctor and his Gadda Hospital is situated at Shivaji chowk, the Digras. The opponent No.2 is an insurance company who has indemnified the profession of the opponent No.1.

3.   The complainant has contended that on 3/11/2017, he went to Krushi Utapann Bajar Samiti, Digras and he was fallen on the knee. He was having knee pain, therefore, he went to the opponent’s hospital on 2/12/2017. The complainant was advised to take medical treatment for hip fracture. Accordingly, the complainant  had visited on 16/12/2017 and 15/12 /2018 to the opponent’s hospital. On those days also hip X-ray was taken. In spite of medical treatment of the opponent, the complainant could not get cure. Hence, on 5/7/2018, the complainant had approached one another orthopedic Doctor-Sameer Aashegaonkar, Digras. When the complainant had disclosed the medical treatment of the opponent, it was stated by the Dr. Aashegaonkar that the opponent had provided incorrect medical treatment. There was no hip fracture and the opponent has not given any treatment for the knee. Dr. Aasegaonkar has started treatment on the complainant’s left knee. At that time, in X-ray, it was affirmed that there was fracture of the left knee of the complainant.   

4.      The complainant further alleged that, therefore, he met to Dr. Ritesh Jarande, Pusad on 11/7/2018. After examination of X-ray, Dr. Jarande had asked to the complainant to undergo two surgeries for his left knee and there would be three to four lakh medical expenses. It was also told that the opponent had not provided proper medical treatment. The complainant  had issued notice dated 8/8/2018 to the opponent and asked for compensation of Rs. 3 lakh along with Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.

5.     The opponent Dr. has appeared before the Commission and resisted the claim. It is defence of the opponent Doctor that when on 2/12/2017, the complainant arrived at his hospital, it was disclosed that prior to 8 days, the complainant was fallen. At that time, there was the contusion on left hip and thigh. The complainant was having pain on his hip and thigh. After getting X-ray, there was fracture intertrochanter. Then again X-ray was done. It it was transpired that  hairline fracture on intertrochanter hip. The complainant was asked to come for follow up  and he was advised to take bed rest. Knee traction was obtained. The medicines were prescribed and the complainant was asked to come for follow-up on 15/1/2011. 

6.      Then the complainant was able to walk. But, since then, he never turned. This complaint is filed only to extract money. The opponent has given proper medical treatment to the complainant and there was no medical negligence. Hence, the opponent is not liable to pay any compensation. It is urged to dismiss the complaint.

7.      During the course of trial,  the opponent number 2 was added as the necessary party. After reciptance of notice, the opponent number 2 has resisted the complaint by filing its say. It is submission of opponent that the opponent no.2 had indemnified profession of the opponent doctor. The complainant has not abided the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the opponent-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. In all, it is urged to dismiss the complaint.

8.  The complainant has filed Xerox copies of Insurance, prescription of Dr. Gadda, & X-rays, prescription of Dr. Sameer Aasegaonkar & X-ray, prescription of Dr. Jarande,

9.      Opponent-Insurance company has filed its reply and affidavit.

10.    Considering the arguments placed on the record as well as on perusal of the documents alongwith these pros and cons, following points arise for our determination. We have recorded findings thereon with the reasons stated hereinafter.

Reasons

As to Issue no 1 to 3

11.    In the instance case, facts admitted or not disputed are as under ...

The opponent Dr. Gadda is one of the orthopedic doctor, while the opponent number 2-United India insurance company limited has indemnified  business of the opponent number 2. The complainant is running at the age of 78 years and he was fallen on his knee on 3/11/2017. The complainant went to opponent doctor for medical treatment on 2/12/2017, 16/12/2017 and 15/1/2018. During these three visits, hip X-rays were taken. The complainant had visited the hospital of Sameer Aasegaonkar on 5/7/2018 to take medical treatment of knee. The complainant again visited hospital of Dr. Ritesh Jarande at pusad.

12.    In this context, the complainant has made allegations that he was having knee injury and the opponent doctor has not treated on his left knee. But the medical treatment was given to his hip fracture. Therefore, he could not cure. It is also  contention of the complainant  that later on, when he met to Dr. Sameer Aasegaonkar and Dr.Ritesh Jarande, it was told that the opponent doctor has not provided proper medical treatment. Hence, the complainant has to undergo 2 surgeries and to pay Rs. 3 to 4 lakh towards medical expenses.

13.    It is apparent in the evidence that the complainant was fallen in the market yard of the Digras on 3/11/2017. But, the complainant met to the opponent doctor for medical treatment on 2/12/2017. We are very confused, if at all, the complainant was having fracture injury or left knee, then how can he bear his pain for one month. Moreover, the complainant had visited the opponent’s hospital on 2/12/2017, 16/12/2017 and 15/1/2018. The complainant had drawn his hip X-rays from time to time. The medical treatment was also received by the complainant.

14.    It is pertinent to note that the complainant had got medical treatment for near about 3 months. In these 3 months, there was no complaint against the opponent doctor, in respect of his pain or medical treatment of the opponent.  In the instant episode, it evident that on 5/7/2018, the complainant had visited the hospital of Dr.Sameer Aasegaonkar. It means that the complainant had visited Dr. Aashegaonkar after 6 months of the previous medical treatment of the opponent i.e. 15/1/2018.  We could not gather any piece of evidence that in these 6 months, whether the complainant was having any pain on his knee or not.

15.   At the next turn, it is relevant to mention here that the question raised here that whether the complainant has disclosed his knee pain to the opponent doctor or not. There is no clarification on the part of the complainant to say that the complainant had never asked to the opponent  about his hip pain. Apart from that we find that the opponent doctor had got X-ray, wherein, there was hairline hip fracture. Then, it was obvious on the part of the opponent to provide medical treatment of the complainant’s hip only. In fact, x-ray plates filed by the complainant itself suggest that the complainant was having hairline hip fracture. In these set up circumstances, we are of the firm view that the opponent doctor has given proper medical treatment to the compainant. The complainants pain (what ever may be) were relieved and therefore, the complainant could bear those pains for near about 1 year. 

16.    In this regard, it is to be noted that the complainant met to Dr. Aasegaonkar on  5/7/2018, who had not given any such written suggestion that the complainant was wrongly treated by the opponent doctor. The complainant was treated by doctor Aashegaonkar for  left knee fracture. In this back drop,  it reveals that the complainant has got that knee injury but its timing is folded. The complainant has not disclosed  what treatment was advised by the doctor Aasegaonkar. However, the complainant has again met to Ritesh Jarande, Pusad on 18/7/2018 who was advised to undergone 2 surgeries and which will cost Rs  3 to 5 lakh for these surgeries. We find that both these doctors have not disclosed what was the wrong treatment given by the opponent doctor. It is  not bring on record, what wrong medicines were prescribed by the opponent doctor or what loss or body was damaged. There is absolutely no whisper in the prescription of doctor Aasegaokar or Dr.Jarande. Unless, it is prescribed by the later doctors about the wrong medications, one can not conclude any error,  mistake or medical negligence on the part of the opponent doctor.

17.    It is also to be noted that the complainant has facing his knee injury from 3/11/2017 and now we are entering in the year of 2023. The complainant has no where disclosed that he had  undergone such surgery and paid such medical expenses or even the complainant has not adduced any piece of evidence to show that he had visited government hospital for the medical treatment. In these situations, we find that the complainant has tried to patch up the case by making new theory and say that opponent doctor has not treated him well.

18.    After considering all the facts, circumstances and evidence available on record, we hold that the complainant has squarely failed to establish the fact that the opponent-doctor has committed any medical neglence. Consequently, the complianant deserves to be dismissed. In view of all these facts, we answer all the points accordingly and proceed to pass following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint stands dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies be provided free of costs to the parties.

Dt.   13  April  2023

CGM