District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Palwal
Consumer Complaint No.506/2019.
Date of Institution:18.10.2019.
Date of Order: 25.01.2024.
Smt. Shimla Devi, W/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar, aged 39 years, 8/o Village Mirjapur, Post Office Neemka, Tehsil Ballabgath, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana.
….Complainant…….
Versus
1. Dr. Fauji Clinic, Trikha Colony, Ballabgarh
2. Sarvodaya Hospital & Research Centre, YMCA Toad, Sector-8, Faridabad.
3. C.M.O., B.K. Hospital, Faridabad.
…Opposite parries…..
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: Sh. Hari Shankar Rajvans , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Jagat Singh , counsel for opposite party No.1.
Shri Shekhar Anand Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.3 exparte vide order dated 08.02.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the husband namely Mr. Ashok Kumar was working with M/s. Udai Gas Agency and the complainant and two daughters were dependent upon her husband Mr. Ashok Kumar. On 25.12.2017 at about 6.30 P.M. husband of the complainant regarding treatment his treatment reached nearest Fauji Clinic, Ballabgarh i.e. respondent no. 1 where the concerned doctor during the treatment of the husband of the complainant gave injunction and immediately on giving injunction the husband of the complainant started swaging (Jhag) from his mouth and the health of the husband of the complainant got deteriorated and on seeing the condition of the patient the concerned doctor immediately got him admitted in nearest Sarvodaya Hospital, Sector-8, Faridabad and the concerned doctor admitted the husband of the complainant and issued Registration No. 378483 dated 26.12.2017 and they issued the receipt of Rs.2140/- to the complainant whereas the husband of the complainant of having Rs. 41,000/- in his pocket and the balance amount of Rs.38,960/- was not found by the complainant and after admitting the husband of the complainant they denied to treat the husband of the complainant and after knowing the fact it had been transpired that it was happened due to treatment of doctor concerned of Fauji Hospital but when the concerned doctor asked about diagnose and treatment of the patient he did not give any satisfactory reply and detail and refused to give any detail and the doctor declared him dead in his examination. The concerned doctors refused to give any discharge summary, medical report, diagnose, X-ray, ultra sound, medical transparency, Eco report etc. which was illegal as per law. On the facts and circumstances it had been crystal clear that both the doctors in connivance with each other by giving wrong medicines got dead the husband of the complainant namely Mr. Ashok Kumar. The husband of the complainant got dead due to carelessness of the above said doctors in getting the treatment of the said Sh. Ashok Kumar. The complainant gave an application the Commissioner Faridabad of police, Sector-21C, Faridabad. In the said the complainant requested police to respondents lodge FIR against the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 and give the compensation amount to the complainant towards death of said Ashok Kumar due to wrong treatment but the police did not lodge any FIR against the respondents nos. 1 & 2 and also did not take any action against the said doctors. The complainant also gave the above application to the respondent no.3 i.e C.M.O, B.K. Hospital Faridabad for taking against the above said doctors due to their illegal and malafide practice against the husband of the complainant the respondent no. 3 investigated the matter and admitted that the above said death had taken place due to carelessness and negligency of respondent no. 1 and the complainant got said investigation report through RTI, the respondent no. 3 left the name of respondent no. 2 in its investigation report and did not follow the norms of medical counsel of India which was prescribed by the practice of hospital's licence and penal law and did not take any action against the respondents nos. 1 & 2. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay compensation amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of the complainant by providing wrong diagnose, treatment and did not take any precaution during treatment as well as expert advice/opinion, mental agony, tension and unnecessary suffering respondents deliberate, etc. caused by the respondents due its above deliberate, deficient services and unfair malicious medical practice towards the treatment of husband of the complainant.
(b) pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges.
2. Respondent No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint. The respondent No.1 never gave any treatment nor gave any injection to the deceased. It was submitted that when the husband of complainant came to the clinic of respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 suggested the complainant to take her husband to higher hospital because his condition had serious. The respondent No.1 never gave any prescription. The respondent No.1 taken the husband of complainant in Sarvodya Hospital in his car being neighbour and humanity. The complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint. The complaint of the complainant was bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. The respondent No.1 was unnecessary and improper party. When the respondent No.1 never gave any treatment, nor prescribed any prescription, nor gave any injection to the deceased then there was no question of malafide practice, carelessness and negligence of respondent No.1 did not arise. The Principal Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Faridabad stated in his opinion that the complainant had never in this regard produced any document that the deceased was injected or treated by the doctors of Fauzi Clinic. However, the board observed that the Fauzi Clinic's representatives or doctor never bothered to come and defend. As per PI MLC No.5665 dated 25-12-2017 the husband of complainant died at home and when he came to hospital the deceased had become dead and the father of deceased also given a note in writing that he did not want the postmortem of his son Ashok Kumar and his son died due to illness and he has no doubt to any one. The respondent No.1 gave his statement before ACP Ballabgarh and the ACP Ballabgarh in his report stated that Ashok Kumar was expired due to illness and the respondent No.1 was not responsible for it. Respondent No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Respondent No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Respondent No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint of the complainant was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant had not come before the Hon'ble Forum with clean hands. The complainant has not brought before the Forum the true facts that the answering respondent had performed its part of duty diligently and had not caused any medical negligence and/or deficiency in services when the patient i.e husband of the complainant was brought to the respondent no. 2 hospital on dated 25.12.2017at around 7:45 PM. It was a matter of fact that when the patient was brought to the answering respondent in its Emergency he was already dead and the said fact was confirmed by the doctors of the answering respondent after carrying out proper examination of the complainant's including carrying out his ECG. The complainant's husband was brought dead was also Informed to the father of the deceased namely Maya Kishan who accompanying at the relevant time. It was also pertinent to mention here that the answering respondent had even not charged for the said ECG conducted but only taken the Mortuary charges to the tune of Rs 2,140/- & for the ambulance services to the tune of Rs. 2,500/-. Further, as per the legal guidelines, the intimation regarding the death of the deceased was also given to the local police and the police also reached there Immediately & asked the family members of the deceased for conducting the Post Mortem of the body but the family members refused for the same stating that they have no cause of concern or doubt against anybody. The father of the deceased had also acknowledged the said fact in writing that he did not want to get the post mortem of the dead body as his son got died due to his illness. The complainant had also moved a complaint before the Principal Medical Office/Investigation officer, civil Hospital, Faridabad which also after conducting the proper investigation of the matter found the answering respondent innocent and had held that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the answering respondent, Including taking Rs. 41,000/, had no merits and exonerated the answering respondent from all the charges but directed to take action against the respondent no. 1 only. Respondent No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Respondent No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Respondent No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that on the complaint of Smt. Shimla W/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar R/o Village Mirjapur, P/o Neemka, Ballabgarh, Dist. Faridabad, a board of doctors by the order of PMO, Civil Surgeon, Faridabad was constituted, and letters were sent to the concerned persons/institutions and opportunities were provided to both the parties to produce their submissions, and in the end of enquiry the board came to opinion that the Fauzi Clinic was negligent and action should be taken against him as per law . It was submitted that the complainant never visited for treatment to respondent no. 3 as mentioned in the complaint, at any time, to prove this complainant had to put strict documentary proof. It was further submitted that the present complaint was not maintainable against the answering respondent, because answering respondent never given any treatment or deal with the illness of the complainant at any time, so the answering respondent could not be treated as service provider to complainant, and the complainant could not be treated as consumer u/s 2 of Consumer Protection Act, against the answering respondent. Respondent No.3 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 party with the prayer to: pay compensation amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- on account of death of the husband of the complainant by providing wrong diagnose, treatment and did not take any precaution during treatment as well as expert advice/opinion, mental agony, tension and unnecessary suffering respondents deliberate, etc. caused by the respondents due its above deliberate, deficient services and unfair malicious medical practice towards the treatment of husband of the complainant.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Smt. Shimla Devi, Ex.C-2 – bill dated 26.12.2017,, x.c-2 – Bill of supply, Ex.C3 to c8 – postal receipts,, ex.c-9 - complaint to Police Commissioner, Ex.C-10 – co plaint to Sadar Thana, Ballabgarh, Ex.C-11 to C-16 – postal receipts,, Ex.C-17 – complaint to Bharat Sarkar, New Delhi,, Ex.C-18 – postal receipt,, Ex.C-19 – RTI letter, Ex.C-20 reply to RTI letter dated 11.6.2019,, Ex.C-21 – postal receipt,, Rc.v-22 – RTI letter,, Ex.C-23 – reply to RTI letter dated 9.9.2019,, Ex.C-24 – ration card,, Ex.C-25 – aadhar card,, Ex.C26 – e-Pehchan card,, Ex.C-27 – death certificate.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Sharda Singh C/o Fauji clinic, Trikha Colony, Ballabgarh, district Faridabad, Ex.D-2/1 – Police Information for M.L.C,, Ex.D-2/2 – report of board.
Case called several time since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 Hence, opposite party No.3 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.02.2022.
8. It is evident from report of Medical Board vide Ex.D-2/2 which are as under:
After the enquiry the board is of the following observations:-
1. the deceased was injected some injection and after that his situation worsened. (could not be commented upon as main accused did not turn up to defend himself).
2. Sarvodaya Hospital had charged Rs. 41,000/-. This allegation was found to be false, as the deceased was brought dead and the hospital had charged only for Mortuary and Ambulance services.
3. Sarvodaya Hospital refused to treat the deceased found to be false allegation as the patient was brought dead. As proper Police information was prepared. ECG was conducted )copies attached), But the attendants of the deceased refused for ay postmortem and medicolegal course.
4. Allegation that Sarvodaya Hospital has not informed about the condition, treatment, diagnosis etc. This allegation also found to be false as patient was brought dead and proper SOP’s were flowed.
5. the treating doctor was negligent in the treatment of deceased by Fauzi clinic, Ballabgarh. However, the complainant had never in this regard produced any document that the deceased was inject or treated by the doctors of Fauzi clinic. However, the board observed that the Fauzi clinic’s representatives or doctor never bothered to come and defend. So, the board was of the opinion prima facie the doctor at Fauzi clinic was negligent in the treating the deceased and no proper SOP’s were followed by him. The patient was shifted without any Oxygen or life supporting system. No CPR was done to save a precious life.
Opinion: Hence, the board is of the opinion that the fauzi clinic was Negligent and action should be taken against him as per law.
Dr. Punita Hasija Dr. S.K.Ahlawat, M.O Dr. Yogesh gupta, M.O
IMA, President enquiry Officer enquiry Officer. “
9. Keeping in view of the above Board report vide Ex.D-2/2, the Commission is of the opinion that deficiency is service on the part of respondent No.1 i.e Dr. Fauji Clinic has been proved. Resultantly, the complainant is allowed. Opposite party No. 1is directed to:
a) pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Only) as compensation on account of death of the husband of the complainant by providing wrong diagnose, treatment and did not take any precaution during treatment as well as expert advice/opinion, mental agony, tension and harassment to the complainant.
b) pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 25.01.2024 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission,Faridabad..
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
