District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No..010/2017.

Date of Instt. 06.01.2017.

RB No. 169/2018.

 Date of Institution: . 27.04.2018.

Date of Order: 31.10.2022.

Bharat Singh Sengar S/o Shri Karan Singh R/o House No. 147, Adarsh Colony, NH-IV, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Dr. D.K.Biswas (now deceased) Consultant Incharge Apex Multispecialty and Laparoscopy Hospital, 3-C/79, B.P.Near D.A.V. College, NH-3, NIT Faridabad through his LRs:

i.                 Sulabha Biswas (widow)

ii.                Bhargava Biswas (son)

                   Both resident of Q-226, G.F.Sector-75, Park Elite, Faridabad.

2.                Apex Multispecialty and Laparoscopy Hospital, 3-C/79, B.P. Near D.A.V. College, NH-3, NIT, Faridabad.

                                                                   ………Opposite parties…..

3.                The Incharge, Santosh Multispecialty Hospital, 3F/139, Near Police Post, NH-3, NIT Faridabad.                                                            

                                                                   ………Performa Opposite party

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.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:          Shri Chander Sain,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  J.S.Dhankar, counsel for the LRs of O.P.Nos.(i) & (ii).

                             Opposite party No.3 – Proforma opposite party.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was got admitted by opposite party No.1 in opposite party No. 2 hospital on 4.1.2015 for treatment of fever as well as pain in his body alongwith chilliness and was kept under the treatment of opposite party No.1 for which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.32,200/-. The complainant after his discharge from said hospital was asked to come for further check up after a week. The complainant did not feel relieved from said sufferings so he was again admitted in said hospital on 26.11.2015 for treatment of same disease. The complainant was discharged on 1.12.2015 without any reason and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.29,500/-. In order to have second and third opinion the complainant through email as well as letter demanded from opposite parties Nos.1 & 2  details of medicines prescribed to the complainant but opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refused to provide the same.    The complainant visited Dr. Subhash Ahuja at his clinic, B.K.Chowk, NIT Faridabad who after his examination diagnosed that infection in urine and chest was causing high fever and chilliness. As said doctor Ahuja went outside India for

sometime so the complainant visited Royal Multispecialty Hospital, NH5, Faridabad from where he was referred to QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad on payment of Rs.2000/-. After  proper check up and tests the attending doctor of Santosh Multispecialty Hospital declared that the complainant had been suffering from chest infections from 27.11.2015 approximately but opposite party No.1 had treated the complainant in his hospital for about one month with wrong prescription of medicines.  Thereafter the complainant wrote letter to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 but despite receipt of said notice opposite parties nos.1 & 2 did not response. The complainant sent legal notice to opposite parties No.1 & 2 on 17.10.2016 with a copy each to the Chief Medical Officer Faridabad and Director, Health Services Haryana, Chandigarh for taking necessary action against opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. The complainant prayed for directing opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 to pay amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of legal bills and expenses. The complainant further prayed to impose penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 for misleading and mistreating the complainant for vested interest.

2.                Upon receipt of the complaint notices were sent to opposite parties Nos.1 to 3. Registered notices sent to opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 on 23.1.2017 not received back either served or unserved. More than one month has elapsed. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties nos. 1 to 3. Therefore, opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.2.2017.

3.                The complaint was decided vide order dated 05.07.2017 but aforesaid order was set aside by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

Haryana vide order dated 17.01.2018 and the case was remitted to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh with the direction to opposite party to appear before this Forum on 15.02.2018.

4.                Thereafter counsels for the parties appeared on 15.02.2018. Counsel for opposite party filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  there was concealment of fact sin the present complaint.  The true facts were that on 30.10.2015, the complainant came to the answering opposite parties, at about 3.00p.m.. as he as having the history of high grade fever with chilliness, pain in body, cough hedic, pain abdomen etc. since last seven days, as per his own version, hence he got admitted as indoor patient on the same day i.e 30.10.2015 and thereafter, he was medically checked-up, there was B.P., 110/70, Pulse-92, temperature 103.  On the basis of which, the prescription slip was issued by opposite party No.1.  During his admission as indoor patient in the hospital, on 30.10.2015, the complainant was again medically checked up by opposite party No.1, there was temperature 101.2 and was High Grade fever alongwith chilliness.  On the same day, there were various tests were conducted upon the complainant and at that time Total Leucocyte Count (TLC) was 12700 (whereas normally it should be 4000-11000).  Accordingly, he was given treatment by the opposite parties.  On 31.10.2015 the complainant was checked up by opposite party No.1, at that time he disclosed that he was having severe head ache, and upon checking, thee was temperature of complainant 99.6.  After that he was regularly checked-up two times in a day and also by other consultants of the hospital and nothing significant in the history of ailment was noticed was given proper treatment and medicines by the answering opposite parties.  On the same day, in evening the temperature of complainant was

98.  On more check-up it was found that the complainant was having chest problem and severe headache.  The Digital Xray of Chest of complainant was conducted on 31.10.2015 and as per Xray, he was having patchy opacity in right apex.  There was Mild Hepatosplenomegly on the person of complainant, whereas as per NCCT Brain of the complainant, everything was normal.  On further Digital X-ray PNS on 3.11.2015 of the complainant, he was having both frontal sinuses as hazy.  Further on Liver Function Test, SGOT/AST was found 62.0 (whereas normally it should be 05-40) and SGPY/ALT was found 94.0 (whereas normally it should be 05-35).  Accordingly, on the basis of above said diseases, the complainant was given treatment in routine and he was discharged on 04.11.2015.  Because, everything was O.K./clenically better, afebrite, vitals normals.  Again on 26.11.2015, the complainant again visited opposite party No.1, with a history of Low Grade ever and chilli since 7 days, High Grade Fever and other various diseases including chills, vomiting, weakness, pain all over his body and joint pain.  He was again medically checked-up and it was found that there was temperature 102.6, pulse rate was 76, B.P. was 90/60, chest was clear and was having urine infection, accordingly, he was given treatment.  The complainant remained admitted as an indoor patient, since 26.11.2015 upto 1.12.2015.  There was final diagnosis Erteric fever/Tcp/Hepatitis on the person of complainant.  As per the said diseases, the complainant was given treatment by the answering opposite parties.  Because at that time, the complainant was having the complaint of nouse, headache, bodyache etc.  The platelet count was low i.e. 96, whereas normally it should be 150 to 400.  Further on Liver Function Test, SGOT/AST was found 217.0 (whereas normally it should be 05-40) and SGPT/ALT was found 321.0 (whereas normally it should be 05-35).  Accordingly, on the basis of above said

diseases, the complainant was given treatment in routine, as he was having Mild Hepatosplenomegaly Cystitis on 27.11.2015.  The complainant was given best treatment in the hospital, by opposite parties and on 30.11.2015, there was stable condition of the complainant.  After that on 1.12.2015, he was discharged from the hospital, as the complainant was absolutely fit and was fully satisfied with the treatment given by the answering opposite parties.  As per the diseases, the proper treatment was given by the answering opposite parties to the complainant, on the basis of history of diseases of the complainant.  He was given proper medicines, anti-biatic medicines, injections from time to time by the answering opposite parties in their hospital.  There was no any negligency on the part of answering opposite parties, during the course of treatment of the complainant as indoor patient in the hospital of answering opposite parties.  Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

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

7.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Dr. B.K.Biswas  with the prayer to: pay amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of legal bills and expenses. The complainant further prayed to impose penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 for misleading and mistreating the complainant for vested interest.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1-A – affidavit of Bharat Singh Sengar, Ex.C-1/1 – Case summary and discharge record, Ex.C-1/2  to C-1/19-  Reports, Ex.C-1/20  & C-1/21 – Prescription,, Ex.C-1/22 to C-1/25 – Tests, Ex.C-1/26 – OPD Bill cum receipt, Ex.C-1/27 – OPD receipt, Ex.C-1/28 – Retail invoice, Ex.C-`1/29 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-1/30 – Invoice Cum Receipt, Ex.C-1/31  & C-1/32– OPD cards, Ex.C-1/33 – Invoice, Ex.C-1/34 – Cash memo, Ex.C-1/35  & C-1/36– Bill/Cash memo, Ex.C-1/37 – Statement of Bharat Singh Sengar,, Exs.C-1/39 – legal notice,, Ex.C-1/38 – courier receipt,  Ex.C-1/40 to C-1/43 – postal receipts, Ex,C-1/44 – letter dated 3.09.2016, Ex,C-1/45 to C-1/49 -  prescriptions, Ex.C-1/50 to C-1/51 – OPD Summary, Ex.C-1/52 to C-1/53 – prescription, Ex.C-1/54 – TPA/Reimbursement/Cash payment,, Ex.C-1/55 – Discharge sheet, Ex.C-1/56 – Test report, Ex.C-1/57 toEx.C-1/62 – bills, Ex.C-1/63 -  email, Ex.C-1/64 – Details of  hospital, Ex.C-1/65 – Receipt, Ex.C-1/66 – Bill Master Charge Slip, Ex.C-1/67 – photocopy of photographs, Ex.C-1/68 – Report, Ex.C-1/69 – bill, Ex.C-1/70 to Ex.C-1/71 –test reports, Ex.C-1/72 – emails, Ex.C-1/73 - & Ex.C-1/74 – test report, Ex.C-1/75 & Ex.C-1/78– receipts, Ex. C-1/79 -  Plain X-Ray/Contrast Studies Requisition form, Ex.C-1/80 – Out Patient Department, Ex.C-1/81 –prescription, Ex.C-1/82 – prescription,Ex.C-1/83- Out Patient Department, Ex.C-1/86 – prescription, Ex.C-1/87 – Out Patient Department, Ex.C-1/88 – invoice, Ex.C-1/89 – prescription.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 strongly

agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Dr. B.K.Sharma, Director, Apex Multispecialty and Laparoscopy Hospital, 3-C/79, B.P.Near DAV College, NH-3, NIT, Faridabad, Ex.R-5 – Case summary and Discharge record, Ex.R-2 – prescription, Ex.R-3-investigation, Ex.R-4 to 7 –Progress sheets, Ex.R-8 – Medication Form,, Ex.R-9 & 10 – Observation Chart, Ex.R-11 – Test, Ex.R-12 – Digital X-Ray Chest PA View, Ex.R-13 -  report form Kapoor diagnostics, Ex.R-14 & 15 – report from Dr. Reema Kapoors, Ex.R-16 – Test, Ex.R-17 – Receipt, Ex.R-18 -  Details of patient, Ex.R-19 – Consent for Surgical and/or Medical treatment,, Ex.R-19 – Details of patient,, Ex.R-21 – Consent for surgical and/or medical treatment,, Ex.R-22 – Case Summary and Discharge Record,, Ex.R-23 – history of patient, Ex.R-24 – investigations,, Ex.R-25to R-30 – progress sheets,, Ex.R-31 & R-32– Medication Forms, Ex.R-33 & C-34– Observation chart, Ex.R-35 – Claim Form,, Ex.R-36 to R-38 – Tests, Ex.R-39  -  report form Kapoor Diagnostics, Ex.R-40 -  test from Dr. Reema Kapoors, Ex.R-41 & R-42 – Receipts, Ex.R43 & R-44 – Receipts, Ex.R-45  to R-47-  Retail invoice, Ex.R-48 -  letter dated 01.12.2015, Ex.R-49 -  prescription, Ex.R-50 – Identity card, Adhar card, PAN card, Ex.R-51 -  letter regarding Authorization Cum-Guarantee of payment, Ex.R-52 – Bill/Mast charge slip.

8.                An application for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased Dr. D.K. Biswas i.e opposite party No.1 moved by learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 on 04.09.2019 and  the same was allowed vide order dated 04.09.2019.

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

10.              Counsel for the complainant argued that he was suffering from high fever and was treated by opposite party No.2 but instead of getting recovery, the infection increased, as wrong medicines were given and symptoms of some other diseases were also came up and the complainant, had to part with a sum of Rs.29,500/- on 01.12.2015 with no relief,    The counsel for the complainant further argued that he totally lost faith in opposite party No.2 and had to approach Dr. Subhash Ahuja, a Renowned Doctor, who diagnosed infection in urine & chest, which had been causing the high fever.  As Dr. Subhash Ahuja, was to go out, hence, could not treat the complainant, but still charged Rs.2000/- as consultation and test fees.  The complainant was rushed to  QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad, after Dr. Subhash Ahuja leaving and the report sof QRG & Royal Hospital. After the proper checkups, Santosh Multispeciality, Hospital declared that the complainant was suffering from 27.11.2015 from the disease of infection in chest and urines,  but as Dr. D.K.Biswas, the first consultant, could not detect the disease, hence he went on prescribing and providing the medicines, which did not help in curing but rather affected the complainant, further and the disease i.e. fever went on increasing. He further argued that the wrong prescribed hard medicines, provided by Dr. D.K.Biswas, caused the patient, serious internal diseases and the prescription of Santosh Hospital, which detected the real cause of illness.

11               On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties argued that on 30.10.2015 the complainant came to the opposite parties as he was having the history of high grade fever with chillness, pain body, cough hedic, pain abdomen etc.  Since last seven days, as per his own version, he got admitted as an indoor patient on 30.10.2015 and therefore, he was medically checked up, there was B.P.100/70, pulse-92. Temperature 103.  On the basis of which, the prescription slip was issued by opposite party No.1.  During the treatment of the complainant, he was given medicines as per reports, and he was started to recover from his ailment continuously day by day.  He was discharged from the hospital on 04.11.2015 and everything was O.K./clenically better, afrebrite, vitals normal vide Ex. R-6.   The complainant was medically checked up and various tests were made at that time and as per Ex.R-10  the total leucocyte Count (TLC) was 12700 (Normally it should be 4000-11000), E.S.R. was 10 (normally it should be 0.00.10). There was typhoid to the complainant at that time. Eax.R-11 is Digital X-ray Chest PA view dated 31.10.2015 which has been showing ‘Pathchy opacity seen in right apex’. And ‘Right Costo phrenic angles is blunt. Ex-12 is ultrasound report dated 31.10.2015 according to which liver was having mildly enlarged in mediline span, spleen: Mildly enlarged in size and shape, impression: Mild Hepatospleomegaly.  The complainant was having complaint of pain in his head, then x-ray was done of the head of complainant, but there was everything O.K. as per report Ex. R-13.  The complainant again visited and made complaint of ‘
Sinuses’ then there was digital X-ray PNS was conducted and as per report nEx.R-14, ‘both frontal sinuses are hazy”.  The complainant was again tested for liver function and kidney function.  As per report Ex.R-15, it has been shown “Serum Bilirubin was 1.0(0.2-1.0), SGO/AST was 62.0 (05-40), SGPT/ALT was 94.00(05-35).  As per medical reports Ex.R-10 to Ex.R-15, the complainant was having chest infection, abdomen infection, liver infection, vomiting, high grade fever, gastic and he was having pain in his all over body. He further argued that the complainant was medically checked by after every 2 hours and he was getting full recovery from his ailment, by using the medicines given by the opposite parties.   At the time of discharge on 04.11.2015, the complainant was absolutely in O.K condition and was fit in all respects.  The complainant again visited opposite parties on 26.11.2015 i.e. after 22 days from his discharge.  He was having several complaints, as there was low grade fever, chill since seven days , pain in all over his body, vomiting, weakness and joindix etc. as fully mentioned in Ex.R-21 and R-47.  The complainant again got admitted as indoor patient on 26.11.2016 and he was given treatment.  During that period various test were conducted on the body of complainant vide Ex.R-34 to Ex.R-38.   He further argued that the medicines given by opposite parties to the complainant are fully mentioned in Ex.R-7 and Ex-R-29.  There is no such report of hard and wrong medicine given by the opposite party to the complainant on court file nor there is any report of medical board regarding testing of medicines given by the opposite parties.  As per  Ex.R-19, the final diagnosis was of enteric fever/TCP/hepatitis.  He was given proper treatment for the same and he was absolutely fit and was discharge don 1.12.2015.  The complainant was fully satisfied with the treatment given by opposite party No.1.  At the time of relieving from the hospital of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 the complainant was absolutely fit and in proper condition and there was no any complaint of any alleged diseases in any manner whatsoever.

12.              After going through  the arguments  of both the parties and evidence led by them, the Commission is of the opinion that since the Dr. D.K.Bishwas had been died on 08.05.2019. The complainant has not led any cogent evidence to prove the factum that opposite parties were negligent while treating the Complainant. In this regard, no expert opinion has been brought on record. In the absence of expert opinion and any cogent evidence merely on the basis of presumption it can not be deemed that there was any negligence on the part of opposite parties while treating the complainant.

13.              As such, neither medical negligence nor deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties  is proved in the present complaint. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 31.10.2022                                  (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal Forum, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.