Advocate Rajendra Palkar for the Complainant
Karnik & Karnik Advocates for the Opponents
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**-
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date- 21st April, 2014
This complaint is filed by consumer against the Doctor for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is a senior citizen and residing at Kondhawa, Pune 411 048. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are doing the medical profession in Homeopathic. Opponent No.1 is the head office and the Opponent No.2 is the branch office at Pune. Complainant is 70 yrs old lady. She was suffering from Spondilytis. She sought opinion from various doctors and experts but as the vertebrae in neck had little cushioning between three of the vertebrae there was no conclusive solution to the problem of Spondilytis and the only answer as per the Allopathic Medical system is the use of pain killers. Complainant had visited Neurologist, who had advised to consult Homeopathic Practitioner. Hence, she had visited the Opponent No.2 i.e. the branch office of the Opponent No.1. She was attended by one lady doctor. Complainant produced x-ray and other papers. Then she was asked to register her name with the Opponent No.2. On 10/6/2011 she was asked to fill Registration Form and to deposit Rs.20,100/-. It is the case of the complainant that no proper treatment was given to her. Opponents have extracted amount of Rs.20,100/- from her. Her x-ray were not examined. There was no investigation or check-up of her illness. Opponent No.2 has issued sugar quoted medicines as medication. Hence, complainant has filed present complaint and asked refund of Rs.20,100/-, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards wrong and ineffective medication. She has also prayed for Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for physical inconvenience and mental trauma and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
[2] Opponents resisted the claim by filing written version. It is the case of the Opponents that the relations between the Opponent No.1 and No.2 were as principal to principal and not as principal and agent. Hence, Opponent No.1 is not responsible for any act of the Opponent No.2. It is further contended that complainant had voluntarily visited the clinic and had deposited the amount after getting proper treatment from the Opponents. It is also denied that complainant was not properly examined and proper diagnosis of the complainant’s illness was not done. It is further contended that, complainant had visited the clinic of the Opponent No.2 on various dates but skipped her appointments and she did not take continuous treatment. It is the case of the Opponents that there was no deficiency in service. The treatment was effective. The allegations as regards compensation for mental and physical harassment are also denied. Opponents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After considering the pleadings of both parties, affidavits, scrutinizing the documentary evidence and argument, following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service at the instance of the Opponents ? | In the negative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is dismissed. |
Reasons-
As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2-
[4] It is the case of the complainant that she was not properly examined and she was not given proper treatment. It reveals from the documentary evidence which is produced on behalf of the Opponents that, she was properly examined and history sheet of the complainant is produced on record. It further reveals from the case papers of the complainant that, she was treated by Dr. Satyashri S. Varma and Dr. Jagdeep Kaur Minhas on various dates. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to accept the query of the complainant that, there was no proper treatment given to her and there was no proper diagnosis of her illness. It is significant to note that, the complainant is 70 yrs. old and she is suffering from Spondilytis. She was taking treatment from Homeopathic clinic. Considering the age and illness of the complainant, recovery from the illness must have been slow. But it cannot be said that, there was deficiency in service at the hands of the Opponents. It is not the case of the complainant that, the doctors have given wrong treatment to her and that amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant had failed to establish that, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. Hence, she is not entitled for the refund of fee which was given by her for the treatment as well as for compensation for mental and physical sufferings and cost of the litigation. In the result, this Forum answer the points accordingly and pass following order-
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Both parties are directed to collect the copies set which are provided for the Hon’ble Members.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
