District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.198/2019.

 Date of Institution: 11.04.2019.

Date of Order: 26.08.2022.

Premwati wife of late Shri Bhup Singh, age 80 years, Occupation Housewife, resident of Village, Firojpur, Tehsil & District Palwal, Haryana  -121102.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Dr. Arvind Kumar, MD(AIIMS) FICS Senior Visiting Consultant, Eye Surgeon, Registration NO. DMC-7198, Fortis Escorts Hospital, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana – 121001.

2.                The Oriental India Insurance Company Ltd., having address: at 4E/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandewalan, New Delhi – 110 024 vide Professional Indemnity bearing Insurance Policy NO. 272200/48/2018/20830 effective from 08.01.2018 to 07.01.2018.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Ashok Kumar Rawat,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  Ravi Nagpal counsel for opposite party NO.1.

                             Sh. Sachinder Bhatia, counsel for opposite party No.2.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant namely Premwati was got admitted at Fortis Escorts Hospital, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana on 22.11.2018 o account of checking the eyes of the complainant. On that day, the opposite party told to the complainant for setting the lance in the left eye of the complainant on that the complainant was ready to same.  The opposite party set a lance in the left eye of the complainant on 22/11/2018 vide his UHID no. FHL11.430114 at bed No. Daycare First Floor-D107 in their hospital.  Regarding the same, the complainant paid total an amount of Rs. 46,455/- to the opposite party and the complainant had been discharge don 22.11.2018 from their said hospital by the opposite party.  The complainant was not administered the proper medical and surgical intervention by the opposite party who was the attending doctor at the time  i.e. opposite party.  Thereafter, the complainant had not feeling well in her eye and there was also pain in the eye of the complainant and thereafter on 18.12.2018, the complainant checked her eye by the opposite party in the said hospital and then the opposite party told to the complainant that there was problem in the left eye retina of the complainant.  The opposite party also known about the eye retina problem of the complainant, but the opposite party defalcate the money from the complainant, the opposite party deliberate set the eye lance in the left eye of the complainant and also defalcate the money deliberately with bad intention and cheated and also fraud with the complainant.  The complainant sent legal notice  dated 031.12.2018 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                pay an amount of Rs. 46,455/- and to pay the complainant forthwith damages of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of  short and deficient intentional services rendered by the opposite party in any manner whatsoever and causing a great mental agony and unnecessary harassment to the complainant.

b)                pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the attendant of the complainant as maintenance to the complainant.

c)                pay Rs.5,00,000/- for further treatment/medicines and future loss to the complainant.

d)                pay a sum of Rs.21,000/-  to the complainant as litigation expenses for filing the present complaint and interest @ 12% p.a on the total amount.

e)                Any other relief deemed just and proper may also be awarded to the complainant with cost of the complaint.

2.                Opposite party No.1  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  no specific, scientific and justified allegations in regard to negligence or  deficiency in providing services had been made by the complainant against the opposite party and the complainant  had totally failed to explain “as to how he was involved and the opposite party were negligent”. Hence the complaint was miserably failing to explain the cause of action against the opposite party.   No cause of action arose against the opposite party in this case, no negligence or deficiency in services in services had been made/provided by the opposite party to the patient while providing he said services in question .Opposite party was insured with “Oriental India Insurance Company Ltd. Through its  Professional Indemnity Policy No. 272200/48/2018/20830 effective from 08.01.2018 to 07.01.2019. It was

submitted that patient of very old ages of 80 years had cataract and age-related macular degeneration.  Patient was treated diligently prudently with due care and caution medically and surgically for cataract only.  No macular surgery was done. Prior to the surgery, patient was well explained about the age-related macular degeneration and problem regarding retina.  Patient was also explained about the bad outcome of macular degeneration and loss of vision.  There was no problem related to cataract surgery in this patient. Cataract and age related macular degeneration were two different diseases.  Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Opposite party No.2  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant and the opposite party No.1 neither applied for claim and not informed nor provided any treatment record in this regard to the answering opposite party till today and filed the present complaint with a sole motive to grab the amount from the opposite party No.2, hence the present complaint filed by abusing process of law and causing harassment to the answering opposite party.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the answering opposite party No.2 was not liable to pay and compensation to the complainant. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6                 In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Dr. Arvind Kumar and Anr. with the prayer to: a)  pay an amount

of Rs. 46,455/- and to pay the complainant forthwith damages of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of  short and deficient intentional services rendered by the opposite party in any manner whatsoever and causing a great mental agony and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. b)pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for the attendant of the complainant as maintenance to the complainant. c)       pay Rs.5,00,000/- for further treatment/medicines and future loss to the complainant. d)pay a sum of Rs.21,000/-  to the complainant as litigation expenses for filing the present complaint and interest @ 12% p.a on the total amount. e) Any other relief deemed just and proper may also be awarded to the complainant with cost of the complaint.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence affidavit of  Duli Chand, affidavit of Smt. Premwati, legal notice, postal receipt, Discharge summary,, CT scan, Inpatient bill,, bill, Outpatient  receipt, bill,, outpatient receipt, Day-care/inpatient admission counseling form ,receipt,, clearance for discharge, Adhaar card,

On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly

agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1,  Ex. DW-1/A – affidavit of Dr.Arvind Kumar, Factors influencing visual outcome after cataract extraction amount Arabs in Kuwait.

As per evidence of opposite party No.2. Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri

Ramesh Kumar, Divisional Manager, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., NH-5, NIT, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 –Daycare/Inpatient Admission counseling form, Ex.R-2 – insurance policy,

7.                Counsel for the complainant has filed an application on 28.03.2022 for sending the present complaint to the Medical Board of B.K.Hospital to take

opinion with regard to nature of injuries of the complainant  was still under treatment of eye injuries.

 8.               After going through the evidence led by the parties ,the Commission is of the opinion that on the application of the complainant, The Civil Surgeon, Chief Medical Officer,  Faridabad was directed to constitute a board of doctors to give report on the basis of papers submitted by the complainant due to negligence of  Dr.  Arvind Kumar, MD(AIIMS). A Medical Board comprising Dr. Nidhi Sood, M.O. District Civil Hospital, Faridabad, Dr. Shikha Phutela, ASMO, District Civil Hospital, Faridabad, Dr. Atul Aggarwal, NIMA President, Faridabad. Dr. Dinesh Gupta, IMA President, Faridabad,, Dr. Vikas Goel, SMO, Nominee of PMO, District Civil Hospital,  Faridabad & Dr. Sushil Kumar Ahlawat, Dy. C.S. Nominee of Civil Surgeon O/o Civil Surgeon, Faridabad was constituted and said Medical Board submitted its report vide letter No. 2020/1144 dated 16.8.2022. Enquiry members are of the opinion that  “no medical negligence on the part of Dr. Arvinid Kumar of Fortis Escort Hospital Faridabad as the patient was operated after taking proper consent and also after explaining about the guarded visual prognosis.  The reason for non improvement vision after surgery was probably due to macular degeneration alongwith presence of divergent squint resulting in amblyopia. “

9.                The complainant has also not led any cogent evidence to prove the factum that doctors of opposite parties hospital were negligent and careless in treating the complainant. On the basis of opinion of medical board and in the absence of any cogent evidence merely on the basis of presumption, it cannot be deemed that there was any negligence or carelessness or deficient service on the part of opposite parties.

10.              As such, neither any deficiency in service nor medical negligence on the part of opposite parties is proved in the present complaint.

11.              Resultantly, the present complaint is meritless and the same is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 26.08.2022                                  (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.