BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 351 of 2015

Date of Institution: 29.05.2015

Date of Decision: 07.06.2015  

Satnam Singh son of S.Gurbakhash Singh, resident of Village: Taragarh, P.O: Jandiala, Tehsil and District Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Doctor Ashok Mahajan care of Prop. Mahajan Hospital, I/S Gate Khazana, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.H.S.Batra, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.Rajesh Bhandari, Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Satnam Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  he got treatment from the Opposite Party for having bleeding from his nose and he paid an amount for treatment charges and other expenses to the Opposite Party. The complainant had availed the services of the Opposite Party for a consideration. As such, the complainant is consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  In fact, the complainant had complained of bleeding in his nose and  heavy pain and for the treatment, he alongwith his relatives visited Opposite Party on 21.4.2014. After some checking, the Opposite Party admitted the complainant in ICU and entered some cotton in the nose of the complainant and  also gave some treatment to him. A week thereafter, the bleeding, which was stopped then & the complainant was discharged by the Opposite Party on 25.4.2014. The complainant had paid off amount to the Opposite Party. After passing 24 hours, again  on 28.4.2014, the complainant had started pain and bleeding from the nose. The complainant visited the hospital of Opposite Party and complained the Opposite Party, then again the complainant was admitted by the Opposite Party on 28.4.2014. When the complainant was admitted by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party got back earlier record and documents from the complainant. On 3.5.2014 the complainant was discharged by declaring him fit by the Opposite Party. During this period, he was diagnosed and some other treatment was given by Opposite Party. The complainant had paid off more than Rs.80,000/- to the Opposite Party for the treatment, bed charges, etc. After passing 3-4 days, the complainant again complained of same problem of bleeding and pain in his nose, and then instead of visiting the Opposite Party, the complainant was moved to Beas Hospital and contacted the doctor concerned at OPD on 9.5.2014. The doctor concerned gave treatment to him and affixed some stiches in the nose and told that this problem was solved only by way of making stiches in the nose. The complainant was discharged after 2 hours from said date and asked the complainant to come up on 16.5.2014. On 16.5.2014 the complainant visited the hospital and the stiches were removed by the doctor and from then, no such bleeding and pain was occurred to the complainant. The Opposite Party under the shadow of his treatment and without giving any treatment as required for the disease had received amount for which the Opposite Party is not entitled as the complainant was not treated as required. It was also come to the knowledge of the complainant that no operation was done by the Opposite Party for which he was charged from the complainant. The complainant had paid off the amount to the Opposite Party for the treatment which was not done by the Opposite Party. As such, the Opposite Party had illegally received the hard money from the complainant under the shadow of his medical profession which comes under his medical negligence.  The complainant many times approached the Opposite Party and requested them to refund his hard money for which the Opposite Party was not entitled, but the Opposite Party refused to accept the request of the complainant and threatened with dire consequences. The complainant has requested  for paying the claim to the tune of Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest from the date of due till date of its realization alongwith suitable compensation and litigation expenses.  Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed various material facts, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief from this Forum; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant and against the answering Opposite Party; that the complaint of the complainant is legally not maintainable in the present form and as such, same deserves dismissal; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the Opposite Party and that the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against the Opposite Party and levelled false, frivolous and defamatory allegations against the Opposite Party, for which the Opposite Party reserve its legal and valuable right to file separate civil as well s criminal proceedings against the complainant. On merits, it is stated that  the complainant was got admitted in the hospital of Opposite Party on 21.4.2014 at 7.45 AM with complaint of Epislaxis (Profuse nasal bleeding). To stop the bleeding, surgical procedure as prescribed in medical norms anterior nasal packing and cauterization of bleeding vessel in nose was done and patient was discharged on 25.4.2014 in satisfactory condition. As per the history sheet of the patient, bed head ticket, the patient was chronic alcoholic. The excess use of alcohol caused the chronic liver disease and leading to disturbed Liver functions. As per the record and investigation report dated 21.4.2014, the PT (Prothrombion Time) is 19 seconds (prolonged) as against normal value of 13 seconds. Prothromboin time are often prolonged (blood clotting time) because Vitamin ‘K’ dependent synthesis of clotting factor in Liver are diminished due to use of excess alcohol. The patient was again admitted in the hospital on 28.4.2014 on the recurrent bleeding from nose and again, to stop the bleeding surgical procedure as prescribed in medical norms anterior nasal packing and cauterization of bleeding vessel in nose was done and patient was discharged on 3.5.2014 in satisfactory condition. The patient was habitual of taking excessive liquor. As earlier submitted, PT was prolonged against normal and he was also having low level of clotting factors and due to alcoholism, alcoholic patient can bleed again and again due to low level of clotting factors and on the second time i.e. 28.4.2014 Liver function test inform of PT (Prothrombion Time)  was 17 seconds as against normal of 13 seconds. The clotting time of patient was prolonged due to the use of excessive alcohol. Failure of blood to clot is almost universal in patient using excessive alcohol disturbed liver function. PT (Prothrombion Time)  are often prolonged (blood clotting time) because Vitamin’K’ dependent synthesis of clotting factor in liver are diminished due to use of excessive of alcohol.  It is pertinent to mention over here that to increase the clotting system, the patient was given full unit of whole blood and two units of FFP (Fresh Frozen Plasma) to stop the bleeding to raise the level of clotting factors.  It is specifically denied that the hospital at Beas has given stiches in the nose and told that the problem was sought only by way of making stiches in the nose. It is further denied that he was discharged after 2 hours.  It is specifically denied that he was again asked to come up on 16.5.2014. It is also denied that on 16.5.2014 the complainant visited the hospital and stiches were removed by the doctor and from then, no such bleeding and pain was occurred to the complainant.  It is submitted here that as per the record filed by the complainant the same procedure was done by Beas Hospital which was done by the Opposite Party at the time of visit of the complainant in the  hospital of Opposite Party. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his  duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of voter card Ex.C2, copy of ration card Ex.C3, copy of discharge card Ex.C4, copy of discharge card dated 3.5.2014 Ex.C5, copy of medical bills Ex.C6 to Ex.C10, copies of receipts of lab tests Ex.C11 to Ex.C15, copy of bill dated 3.5.2014 Ex.C16, copy of OPD slip dated 9.5.2014 Ex.C17, copy of OPD slip dated 16.5.2014 Ex.C18 and closed the evidence.

4.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.Ashok Mahajan Ex.OP1/1, copy of treatment file consisting of 1 to 16 pages Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence. 

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the  parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       From the pleadings as well as evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant visited  Opposite Party at Mahajan Hospital, Amritsar on 21.4.2014 due to excessive nasal bleeding and pain. The Opposite Party admitted the complainant in ICU and entered some cotton in the nose of the complainant and gave requisite treatment to him. After passing a week, the bleeding which was stopped, the complainant was discharged on 25.4.2014 by the Opposite Party in satisfactory condition. It is the case of the complainant that Epislaxis (Profuse nasal bleeding) started again on 28.4.2014 and he was again treated by the Opposite Party at the hospital. On the other hand, the defence of the Opposite Party is that the complainant was got admitted in the hospital of Opposite Party on 21.4.2014 at 7.45 AM with complaint of Epislaxis (Profuse nasal bleeding).  As per the history sheet of the patient, copy whereof is Ex.OP1/2 on the record, the excess use of alcohol caused the chronic liver disease which leading to disturbed Liver functions. As per the record and investigation report dated 21.4.2014, the PT (Prothrombion Time) is 19 seconds (prolonged) as against normal value of 13 seconds. Prothromboin time are often prolonged (blood clotting time) because Vitamin ‘K’ dependent synthesis of clotting factor in Liver are diminished due to use of excess alcohol. The case of the complainant is that he again suffered from same problem and he got himself admitted in Beas Hospital, where he was given stiches in the nose and he was   discharged within just  2 hours of the treatment. The complainant was   asked to come up again on 16.5.2014. On 16.5.2014 the complainant visited the hospital and the stiches were removed by the doctor. Since then, the complainant was enjoying normal life and he did not suffer from any bleeding or pain in the nose. It is the case of the complainant that had the Opposite Party applied same treatment to the complainant, he must not have suffered problem time and again. He had spent more than Rs.80,000/- on his treatment from the Opposite Party and as such, the complainant was entitled to refund of the same amount alongwith compensation and expenses of litigation.

7.       But however, from the appreciation of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that same treatment was applied by the Beas Hospital which was given by the Opposite Party to the complainant for treating  his nasal bleeding and pain. There is nothing on the record produced by the complainant to reach the conclusion that any different treatment was given to the complainant or that the treatment given by the Opposite Party was not proper and in accordance with accepted norms of the treatment for the above disease. For getting compensation or refund of the litigation expenses incurred by the complainant on his treatment from the Opposite Party, it was incumbent upon the complainant to have proved by leading evidence that the treatment given by the Opposite Party was neither proper nor it was in accordance with normal accepted course of treatment. The complainant was also required to prove that Opposite Party was negligent as well as deficient in service. Since there is no deficiency in service nor there is denial that the complainant not a habitual drinker and alcoholic and the fact that               PT (Prothrombion Time)  is 17 seconds as against normal of 13 seconds. The clotting time of patient was prolonged due to the use of excessive alcohol which discharged liver functions. To increase the clotting system, the patient was given full unit of whole blood and two units of FFP (Fresh Frozen Plasma) to stop the bleeding to raise the level of clotting factors.  There is absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Even the medical record produced by the complainant from Beas Hospital also does not support the case of the complainant in any manner because the similar treatment which was provided by the Opposite Party to the complainant was followed by that hospital. Simply because the complainant could not get desired result from the treatment provided by the Opposite Party, no conclusion can be drawn that Opposite Party was either negligent or deficient in service. The complainant has also not raised any objection regarding the competency or qualification of doctor attending on him at Opposite Party hospital.

8.       From the above appraisal, we come to the conclusion that the complainant has himself failed to prove that Opposite Party while providing treatment to him was ever deficient or negligent in giving the treatment to the complainant. The evidence on record rather supports the Opposite Party that similar treatment was provided to the complainant at Beas Hospital also. As such, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 07.06.2016.                                                      (S.S.Panesar)                                                                                                                                                                                                            President

                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

Member                         Member

hrg