BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 54/2012.
THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Mohammed Noor S/o. Mohd. Khaja Moinuddin,
aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 9-7-79, Maddipet, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. Dr. Anilkumar S/o. Not known, age major, Occ;
Doctor, child specialist, R/o. Ashraya Towers, H.No. 11-5-36 (New) near Chandramouleshwar chowk, Brestwarpet, Raichur.
2. Dr. Malleshgouda S/o. Not known, age major, Occ: Doctor. Child specialist, R/o. New Amrutha Children Hospital, Old city Navodaya Hospital Building, Gunj Road, Raichur.
3. Dr. Md. Rafi, S/o. Not known, age major, Occ: Doctor, Child specialist, Rainbow Hospital Kurnool (AP).
CLAIM :- For to award an amount of Rs. 70,000/- for the
deficiency in services shown by them in treating his son.
Date of institution :- 23-07-12.
Date of disposal :- 27-07-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. P.S. Koparde, Advocate.
ORDERS ON ADMISSION OF THIS COMPLAINT
By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-
This is a complaint filed by one Mohd. Noor against opposite doctors 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award an amount of Rs. 70,000/- for the deficiency in services shown by them in treating his son.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, his son by name Iffan aged one year two months was taken to opposite No-1 Dr. Anilkumar for consultation. The said doctor advised him to go for diagnostic tests and after getting report, he referred his son to opposite No-2 doctor for consultation, accordingly, he got admitted his son in the hospital of opposite No-2, wherein several diagnostic tests conducted, no positive reports found, even then he referred his son to opposite No-3 doctor at Kurnool (AP) there also doctor’s not treated his son properly. Hence all of them found guilty under deficiency in their services and thereby, he prayed for to grant the reliefs as noted in his complaint.
3. Heard on the admission of this complaint. Perused the facts pleaded and documents filed along with this complaint.
4. In-view of the facts and circumstances stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether, it is a fit case to admit it for further enquiry, in view of the facts pleaded by the complainant in his complaint?
2. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In-view of the finding on Point No. 1, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
6. As per the pleadings at Para-2 of this complaint. It is a definite case of complainant that, he consulted opposite No-1 doctor with regard to health complications of his son Iffan (one year two months), diagnostic tests not disclosed any positive results, of any kind of decease, even then opposite No-1 referred his son to consult opposite No-2, accordingly, he consulted opposite No-2 and once again diagnostic tests conducted and no positive signs found in the reports even then opposite No-2 referred his son to consult opposite No-3 at Kurnool (AP).
7. In the background of these allegations against opposite Nos-1 to 3, we have referred the prescription of opposite No-1. This report discloses the fact that, his son was suffering from “ARI-wheigh (acute resperating infaction) and acute GE” and medicines prescribed by him for the said decease, thereafter he might have advised the complainant to consult opposite No-2.
8. As per the referral letter of opposite No-2 discloses that, the child was suffering from “convulsion i.e, meningoencycpnalitis.” Amrutha Hospital prescribed some medicines and referred the complainant to approach Rainbow Hospital, Kurnool.
9. In the said hospital, it was diagnosed that, the child was suffering from “mild degree of mycrocytis Rypochromile Anemia” and medicines prescribed for the said decease.
10. This real fact is out coming from the documents filed by the complainant-himself as such, the say of complainant that, the diagnostic reports of Dr. Anilkumar, Amrutha Hospital and Rainbow Hospital of Kurnool are not showing positive results of any decease is false. The said contention of complainant is against to his own documents. It appears to us from the facts stated above, this complainant might have filed this complaint without knowing the decease suffered by his son and not knowing result of medical reports of opposite Nos. 1 to 3.
11. Another contention that was taken in his complaint at Para-3 is that, opposite Nos- 1 to 3 not given proper medical treatment and advise to his son. This allegation is vague allegation against doctors opposite Nos. 1 to 3, without referring specific incidents. Hence, this ground is also not a good ground to proceed with this case against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 doctors, accordingly at this preliminary stage itself, we have not noticed any kind of deficiency in their services. Hence, we answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.3:-
12. In view of our finding on Point No- 1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed at the admission stage.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 27-07-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
