Delhi

West Delhi

CC/08/395

Lokesh Kumar S/o Shri Lok Nath Chhabra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Ashwini Kumar MBBS, (M.D. Psychiatry), - Opp.Party(s)

22 Mar 2017

ORDER

    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                        Date of institution: 16.05.2008

Complaint Case. No.395/08                                                            Date of order:22.03.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Lokesh Kumar S/o Shri Lok Nath Chhabra, R/o 563-D (E-129), Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034.                                                                                                        Complainant

VERSUS

Dr. Ashwini Kumar MBBS, (M.D. Psychiatry), Proprietor of Santulam Nursing Home F-60, Bali Nagar, New Delhi-110015.                                                                        Opposite party

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Lokesh Kumar named above here in the complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter in short referred as the act against Dr. Ashwani Kumar named above here in the opposite party for directions to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards expenses on medicines and treatment and Rs.50,000/- for compensation on account of mental and physical agony suffered by the complainant on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the opposite party.  

Briefly case of the complainant is that on 04.10.02 he was admitted in Santulam Nursing Home of the opposite party for treatment of mental depression. He deposited Rs.50,000/- for his treatment. The complainant also paid another sum of Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party towards cost of medicines and treatment. The complainant remained admitted in the nursing home of the opposite party from 28.10.02 to 20.3.03. He was kept with 15 to 20 patients in a locked room. They were not allowed to go out. The opposite party was not having trained staff to look after the complainant and other patients. The opposite party had kept pehalwaan type youths. They used to beat the complainant regularly after taking family members of the complainant in confidence. They used to threat the complainant that in case he told his grievances, torture and painful suffering to his parents they would kill him, declare him mad and will throw the complainant at Shahdara Mental Hospital.

 

That on 19.03.03 Dharmendra one pehalwaan type employee of the complainant threw a book on right eye of the complainant. He suffered grevious injury in his right eye. Eye ball of the right eye of  complainant was damaged and blood started oozing out from the right eye. The opposite party did not inform parents of the complainant of the grevious injury in his right  eye. On 20.03.03 when father of the complainant came to see him he saw blood was oozing from the right eye of the complainant. On enquiry the opposite party told father of the complainant to take him to some eye specialist for checkup and treatment of the injury in right eye. On advice of the opposite party, father of the complainant took him to Dr. Talwar Eye Care, Sainik Enclave, New Delhi. Dr. Talwar after some treatment referred the complainant either to Guru Nanak Eye Centre or Rajinder Prasad Eye Centre AIIMS New Delhi.

 

That on 20.03.03, the complainant was taken to Guru Nanak Eye Centre. But he was not admitted due to non-availability of bed. Therefore, he was taken to R.P. Eye Centre AIIMS. He was given preliminary treatment and advised to visit again next day. On 21.03.03, he again visited R.P.Eye Centre AIIMS, New Delhi and was admitted for repair of corniel wound and operation was conducted. He was discharged on 23.03.03. The complainant lost vision of his right eye and became permanently blind due to the injury suffered in the hospital of the opposite party.

 

That after discharge from R.P. Eye Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, the complainant told his parents about torture, mental and physical sufferings and injury in the right eye of the complainant by the pehalwaan type employees of the opposite party. He also told that the workers of the opposite party used third degree method, abused and threatened the complainant. They also used to give electric shock to the complainant in the name of the treatment. They also used to tie his hands, legs and neck with rope. They did not give meals and kept the complainant hungry and lunch as well as articles given by the family members of the complainant were generally eaten by employees of the opposite party. Thereafter, father of the complainant visited the opposite party and asked him to pay compensation on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, torture by the opposite party and loss of vision of the complainant. But the opposite party did not pay any heed.

 

That left eye of the complainant was damaged in the year 2001 due to detachment of retina. His left eye is still under treatment. The complainant is taking regular treatment of his eyes. He regularly visited R.P. Eye Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi for treatment of eyes. Later on, he took treatment of depression from P.G.I.M.S.Hospital, Chandigarh after discharge from hospital of the opposite party on 20.3.03.

 

That the complainant was running a shoe shop. He was also LIC agent. He was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He used to maintain his family. Now he has become permanently disabled and is unable to earn his livelihood. He is dependent on his parents. He has spent Rs.5,00,000/ on treatment.

 

That on 17.01.08 the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party. The opposite party replied the notice. But refused to pay any compensation. Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- born by him on treatment and Rs.50,000/- compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, mental and physical sufferings by the employees of the opposite party and loss of vision.

 

After  notice the opposite party appeared and filed reply while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 24 A of the act and there is no allegation of negligence against the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

On merits the opposite party admitted that on 29.10.02 Shri Lok Nath Chhabra brought his son Lokesh – complainant with help of three - four male person for consultation complaining unnatural violent behavior of the complainant. They told that the complainant is an old case of Chronic Schizophrenia and has been treated by various psychiatrists but is not taking medicines regularly. He was very violent. They requested for immediate admission of the complainant for examination and treatment. The opposite party after examination diagnosed Chronic Schizophrenia and in the interest of the complainant and protection of  others due to violent behavior of the complainant he was admitted. He did not pay Rs.50000/- on 04.10.03. He also did not pay Rs.20,000/- later on. On 10.03.03 on request of Shri Lok Nath father of the complaiannt, he was examined by eye consultant. On 20.03.03 following a tiff with his father, the complaisant banged his head to his bed in presence of his father and fell on floor. On call of attendant of the complainant, the attending staff of the opposite party put the patient back on the bed. Shri Lok Nath was advised to take the complainant to an eye surgeon of his choice. He took the complainant but the complainant was never brought back.

 

It is further alleged that an attendant/ family member of the complainant used to remain with the complainant round the clock during hospitalization. The opposite party and his staff neither tortured nor gave beating to the complainant. The complainant was treated as per prescribed medical standards. All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party while controverting stand of the opposite party and reiterating his stand taken in the complaint. He further asserted that he suffered injury in his right eye on 20.03.03. He remained admitted in R.P. Eye Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi from 21.03.03 to 23.03.03. He has been taking treatment for mental depression since 29.03.03. He was taken to PGI.M.S. Chandigarh for treatment of mental depression on 01.07.04. His treatment continued at AIIMS, New Delhi for mental disorder from 27.09.05 to 09.08.07, therefore, the complaint is within limitation. He once again prayed for directions as prayed in the complaint.

 

The opposite party filed an application under section 24 A of the act for dismissal of the complaint stating that the complaint is barred by limitation and be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The complainant filed reply to the application contesting the same and asserted that the complaint is well within limitation.

 

The complainant filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint on the ground that he remained and is under treatment, therefore, there is no delay in filing the complaint. The opposite party filed reply to the application. While contesting the same and asserted that the complaint is filed after expiry of period of limitation.

 

Vide order dated 24.01.12 this forum observed that the complaint is at final stage, therefore, the issue of limitation cannot be separately taken up and decided and adjourned the complaint for final hearing.

 

When Shri Lokesh Kumar – complainant was asked to lead evidence in support of his complaint he filed affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his version also relied upon Ex. CW-1/1 visiting card of Lokesh Utility Centre, Ex. CW-1/B visiting card of Dr. Ashwani Kumar – OP, Ex. CW-1/B1 receipt dated 07.11.02 for Rs.10,000/-, Ex. CW/1/B2 receipt dated 18.11.0 for Rs.6,000/-, Ex. CW-1/B3 receipt dated 03.12.02 for Rs.10,000/- and Ex. CW-1/B4 receipt dated 03.02.03 for Rs.5,000/-. Ex. CW-1/C OPD slip of complainant of Dr. Rajneesh Talwar, Ex. CW-1/D treatment record of complainant at R.P. Eye Centre AIIMS for Ophthalmic Sciences AIIMS, New Delhi  dated 20.03.03, Ex. CW-1/1 treatment record of the complainant at PGIMS, Chandigarh, Ex. CW-1/F legal notice dated 17.01.08, Ex. CW-1/I legal notice dated, Ex. CW-1/J eyes test report dated 30.04.02.

 

Dr. Ashwani Kumar – OP to rebut oral and documentary evidence of the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit narrating facts of the reply and  application for dismissal of complaint on the ground of limitation. The opposite party also relied upon admission form of complainant Ex CW-R/1.

 

The parties have also submitted written arguments in support of their respective version.

 

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully and thoroughly.

 

From the complaint, reply, affidavits, documents and written submissions of the parties, it is common case of the parties that the complainant was suffering from mental disorder. The complainant was an old case of Chronic Schizophrenia. He had taken treatment from various psychiatrists. The case of the complainant is that he was taken to the nursing home of the opposite party on 04.10.02 and admitted on 28.10.02. Whereas case of the opposite party is that he was brought and admitted on 29.10.02.

It is common case of the parties that complainant suffered injury in right eye on 20.03.03. He was discharged on 20.03.03. Thereafter he was not brought to the nursing home of the opposite party.

 

There is no cogent and convincing evidence on behalf of the complainant that he was suffering from mental disorder only and he was taken to the opposite party on 04.10.02. However, there is sufficient material on the record to prove that complainant was admitted in the nursing home of the opposite party on 29.10.02 and he was suffering from Chronic Schizophrenia.

 

The case of the complainant is that on 19.03.02 Dharmendra an employee of the opposite party threw a book on right eye of the complainant and complainant suffered injury in his right eye. To prove this fact, except affidavit of the complainant, there is nothing on the record to prove that a book was thrown by Dharmendra an employee of the opposite party on right eye of the complainant and complainant suffered injury in his right eye. Whereas, the case of the opposite party is that complainant on 20.03.03 in presence of his father bang to bed and fell on floor and suffered injury in right eye. The opposite party in support of his case has filed affidavit and treatment record. Therefore, the version of the complainant stands rebutted.

 

The complainant  remained admitted in the  R.P. Eye Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi from 21.03.03 to 23.03.03. This factum is proved from the treatment record from R.P. Eye Centre, AIIMS New Delhi. There is also treatment record from PGIMS Chandigarh and AIIMS New Delhi to prove that complainant remained under treatment up to August, 2007. The present complaint is filed on 16.05.08. According to provisions of Section 24 A of the act complaint can be filed within 2 years from cause of action. In the present complaint cause of action is continuous from 20.03.03 to August, 2007. The complaint is filed within in one year from cause of action. Therefore, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complaint is within limitation.

 

In the light of our above discussion and observations the complainant failed to prove that  he was suffering from mental disorder only. He was taken to the opposite party on 04.10.02 and admitted on 28.10.02. Whereas from the admission form and treatment record, it is proved that he was admitted on 29.10.02 by his father in nursing home of the opposite party. The opposite party after many tests formed opinion that complainant was suffering from Chronic Schizophrenia.  He remained under the treatment of the opposite party up to 20.03.03. He suffered injury in his right eye on 20.03.03. But there is no cogent and convincing evidence on behalf of complainant to prove that injury in right eye of the complainant was suffered due to a blow of book by Dharmendra an employee of the opposite party. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint. Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.

 

Order pronounced on : 22.03.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          ( R.S.  BAGRI )

            MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT