Gurmukh Singh complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that opposite parties be directed to make the payment of Rs.18,58,000/-  as damages and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization of the amount to him, in the interest of justice.

2.           The case of the complainant in brief is that in the year 2013, he felt a pain in his left leg and feeling regular pain in it and for this purpose, he contacted and checked up the opposite party at Eknoor Hospital, Batala and  they advised to get M.R.I. done from Govt. Multispecialty Hospital, Chandigarh and he did the same on 17.12.2013. Thereafter, he showed the said M.R.I. to the opposite party who asked him that operation is necessary for removal of the pain in the left leg  and for this purpose, the opposite party settled a fee of Rs.20,000/- as his personal and private fee besides the operation expenses and fee of Shri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Vallah, Amritsar. He paid Rs.20,000/- by arranging the same from his relatives at Batala and was admitted in the hospital on 8.1.2014 and the opposite party took Rs.48,000/- as operation charges from him and the date of operation is fixed as 9.1.2014 and on next day the opposite party operated him but no recovery in his health took place. His health became bad to worst and the lower part of the body became dead and he has not been able to move the lower part of the body which has become dead and the Hospital authority discharged him on 17.1.2014 after giving assurance by the opposite party that he will feel better after some days and recovery will be started. When no recovery took place, then he contacted to the opposite party who referred the matter to Dr.A.K.Tiwari at Chandigarh on 8.2.2014 in writing but the said doctor did not gave any kind of treatment to him after admitting him in the P.G.I. Hospital. Thereafter he alongwith his family members again met to the opposite party where the opposite party asked that the second operation is required in this case for his recovery. For this purpose, the opposite party demanded Rs.50,000/- from him and he paid the same in the presence of his family members but no operation or surgery has been conducted by the opposite party inspite of repeated request and approached made by  him and his relatives and family members. He has further pleaded that he contacted to the Senior Medical Officer, Incharge Civil Hospital Batala alongwith his Medical record who declared him as 100% unfit vide Certificate issued by the Civil Hospital, Batala dated 7.4.2015 and the reason of the same has been mentioned in the Disability Certificate issued by the Civil Hospital, Batala. It was next pleaded that there is a negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and due to this reason he is not in a position to move from the bed. Hence this complaint.

3.        Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 has appeared and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, frivolous, vexatious and scurrilous which is unsustainable in the eyes of law; the complainant has filed this complaint with false allegations of negligence to the Hon’ble Forum; no cause of action arose against the opposite party in this case, no negligence or deficiency in services in services has been made and the present complaint is totally false, fabricated, wrong and baseless. On merits, it was submitted that the patient Gurmukh Singh first came to OPD of the opposite party on 9.1.2014 in SGRD hospital with complaint of weakness both lower limbs from last 3 months. The patient was accompanied by his mother Smt.Lakhwinder Kaur. The patient was carrying MRI dorsolumbar spine reports done on 11.6.2013 from Govt. Multispeciality Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh. After examining the patient thoroughly and viewing his MRI reports opposite party made a diagnosis of d7-d8 compressive myelopathy with intramedullary cord changes. The patient had already visited orthopedic OPD department SGRD Hospital on 8.1.2014 and from there the patient was referred to the opposite party. After thoroughly discussing the need for surgery and the complications which can arise during decompression of such a severe spinal canal stenosis, which includes permanent weakness of both lower limbs, opposite party posted the patient for surgery on the next day. On 10.1.2014 opposite party operated the patient and performed D6 D7 & D8 laminectomy with excision of thickened ligamentum flavum with D5 D7 screw and rod fixation to decompress and stabilize the spine. After the operation the pateint’s condition failed to improve and power of his lower limbs gradually decreased. On 14.1.2014 opposite party advised MRI dorsolumbar spine which showed laminmectomy opposite D5, D6 and D7 and metallic implant in situ. After a request from the attendants of the patient the opposite party handed over the pre-operative and post-operative reports to the patient party as the patient party wanted to consult some other neurosurgeon for a second opinion. The patient party consulted Dr.M.K.Tiwari Prof neurosurgery PGI Hospital, Chandigarh and told the opposite party that they want to shift their patient to PGI Chandigarh as the doctors of PGI hospital have told them that their patient may require another operation expected cost of which was Rs.40,000/-. Opposite party telephonically consulted Dr.M K. Tiwari and he told the opposite party that after admitting and examining the patient, he will decide whether second surgery is required or not. As the patient party was repeatedly requesting the opposite party to give them financial helps. On humanitarian ground the opposite party gave Rs.40,000/- from his own pocket to Lakhwinder Kaur (mother of the patient) for the further treatment. Opposite party also requested Prof Dr.M.K.Tiwari to help the patient as much as he can. After approximately 2 months the patient’s attendant visited the opposite party in his clinic in Batala and told that Dr.Tiwari has not operated their patient and the patient party started demanding money from the opposite party. When opposite party refused to pay them more money, the patient party started abusing the opposite party left the clinic. Then the opposite party started receiving threatening calls from the brother and uncle of the patient that if the opposite party will not pay them money the patient party will break the clinic and will do physical harm to the opposite party. Opposite party filed a complaint to SHO Mr.Hareesh Behal Sadar Police Station Batala Road, Amritsar. The patient party stopped giving threatening calls and started harassing the opposite party by giving false complaint against the opposite party to SSP Batala. Thus, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.       

4.        Opposite party 2 has appeared and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party no.2, because there is no contract of insurance of liability. The insurance company has insured opposite party no.1 through professional indemnity policy. In case of professional indemnity policy, any award or payment pertaining to the case will have to be borne by the insured in this case, opposite party no1. However on the final disposal of the case, the Insurance Company shall certainly reimburse the amount subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. On merits, it was submitted that there is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of Insurance Company or any of its employees and lastly prayed that complaint is without merit, the same may kindly be dismissed qua opposite party no.2.

5.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.

6.       Opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.Ashish Kumar Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence.

7.     Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Pardeep Singh Branch Manager Ex.OP2/1 alongwith other document Ex.OP-2/2 and closed the evidence.

8.         We observe that the complainant has somehow failed to produce (on records) any direct cogent evidence or even otherwise any link evidentiary document supporting his prime allegation of ‘non-requisite’ surgery at the hands of the opposite party neurosurgeon. We find that the complainant was admittedly diagnosed with deviated MRI Scan impressions (Ex.C2 & Ex.C3) of his cervical curvature with reversal (muscle spasm) coupled with disc bulges at C4-5, C5-6 & C6-7 along with reduced height and desiccation of L1-L2 and L5-S1 discs etc and other disorders etc vide MRI Scan Reports dated 17.12.2013 conducted at the Govt. Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh; and afterwards consentedly underwent neurosurgery (Ex.C4 to Ex.C6) at SGRD Charitable Hospital, Amritsar at the hands of the opposite party neurosurgeon. However, the post surgery health status worsened and the complainant was rightfully referred to PGI, Chandigarh (Ex.C8) but it further deteriorated to 100% disability as per the certificate (Ex.C7).  Further, we do not find any other cogent evidence (or even indicative/collateral one) except the filed in affidavits Ex.C1 & Ex.C9 supporting the allegations as put forth in the present complaint and that turns these into mere ‘bald’ statements. And thus, we do not find any ‘evidence’ on record indicating the statutory infringement of consumer rights of the present complainant. Further, it is not understood as to how the OP neurosurgeon could have forced the complainant not to go in for the conduct of ‘medical treatment’ of his own choice and/ or advice etc. There has been no ‘expert-opinion’ produced to authenticate the alleged ‘flaws’ in the medical advice/consultation/treatment etc. No hospital records of subsequent medical treatment were summoned or the attending doctor was produced/summoned as witness to prove the allegations of faulty medical treatment. Even, the OP surgeon was not subjected to cross-examination to determine the falsity of ‘rebuttal’ etc. The depositions in the absence of supporting evidence amount to nothing more than ‘bald’ statements and do not qualify for favorable statutory awards.      

9.       In the light of the all above, we do not see any merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

10      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                           (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                    President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

August 18,2016.                                                          Member               

*MK*