Haryana

Sonipat

423/2013

SMT. VEENA W/O OM PARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. G.P. AGGARWAL - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SHARMA

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.423 of 2013

                                Instituted on:14.10.2013

                                Date of order:20.11.2015

 

Smt. Veena wife of Om Parkash Chhabra resident of Gannaur Mandi, Jain Gali Gannaur, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.Dr GP Aggarwal, MBBS MS Surgeon, Aggarwal Hospital, Railway road, Gannaur, Sonepat.

2.Docland Services Ltd. having its registered office at Capitol Cinema Building, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow-226001 and having its command office at L-76 Jalvihar road, 3^rd floor, near Goal Chauraha, Lajpat Nagar II, New Delhi-24.

 

                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for complainant.  

          Sh. Umesh Dahra, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Respondent no.2 ex-parte.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that  she had been under treatment of the respondent no.1 due to certain problem due to infection etc. in her uterus.  The respondent no.1 sent sample containing specimen of uterus and cervix without adenexas.  The respondent no.1 on receipt of the report immediately operated the complainant for her uterus by removing uterus and charges Rs.2500/- for lab test and Rs.18000/- for operation etc. under receipt dated 2.7.2013.  Due to carelessness act of the respondent no.1, the bleeding out of the operated part of the body while removing uterus could not be controlled.  On 20.7.2013, the respondent no.1 has taken the complainant to Fortis Hospital, Shalimar since her condition had become very serious.  Dr Rakesh Sood of the said hospital started the treatment of the complainant and he also operated the complainant.  The complainant was discharged on 12.8.2013 from Fortis Hospital and the husband of the complainant had to pay a bill of Rs.7,21,947/- to the Fortis Hospital and it all happened due to the carelessness act and deficient & negligent services of the respondent no.1.  The complainant has spent about Rs.9 lacs on her treatment. The complainant asked the respondents to compensate her to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        On notice, the respondent no.1 has appeared and has filed the reply, whereas respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.07.2015.

          The respondent no.1 in his reply has submitted that no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 is made out.  The present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law.  It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no doctor would administer medicine without a halter round his neck.  The complainant was inflicted with uterine problem (fibroid uterus) also known as tumor in uterus.  She approached the respondent no.1 on 5.7.2013 and she was operated on the same day.  The uterus of the complainant was removed after having complete lab tests etc.  Infact the respondent no.1 investigated the complainant pre-operatively and seeing her condition operated upon her and the removed uterus was sent for histopathology.  There was no carelessness on the part of the respondent no.1.  The complainant has concealed that she was stable after the operation and she was not suffering from any post operative disorder.  The allegation of medical negligence on the part of the respondent no.1 are altogether false and baseless.   The complainant was comfortably discharged from the hospital on 12.7.2013 by the respondent no.1 and she never reported back for the post operative follow up till 19.7.2013 and after the ultrasound investigation she was advised admission but she refused and went to her home.  When during the exploration a serious complication was noticed, which had occurred due to the carelessness of the patient, the same was immediately reported to the sister of the patient/complainant.  The respondent no.1 accompanied the patient and her attendants to higher institute keeping in view his pious duty to provide her medical aid on the way and she was operated by the doctors of Fortis Hospital.  The respondent no.1 has denied the fact that he left defects by removing the uterus without caring to control the bleeding and other defects left in the abdomen.  The operation was successful but the complainant did not care herself as was adviced by the respondent no.1 at the time of her discharge on 12.7.2013.  The complainant developed infection due to her own carelessness and she is leveling baseless allegations against the respondent no.1. There was no fault of any kind on the part of the respondent no.1 while treating the complainant. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any kind of compensation from the respondents and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs from the respondents as the respondent no.1 has treated the complainant negligently and has rendered deficient and negligent medical services to the complainant.

 

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has argued that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint by alleging false and baseless allegations against the respondent.  There is no deficient or negligent medical services on the part of the respondent.  It is further submitted that the  complainant was inflicted with uterine problem (fibroid uterus) also known as tumor in uterus.  She approached the respondent no.1 on 5.7.2013 and she was operated on the same day.  The uterus of the complainant was removed after having complete lab tests etc.  Infact the respondent no.1 investigated the complainant pre-operatively and seeing her condition operated upon her and the removed uterus was sent for histopathology.  There was no carelessness on the part of the respondent no.1.  The complainant has concealed that she was stable after the operation and she was not suffering from any post operative disorder.  The allegation of medical negligence on the part of the respondent no.1 are altogether false and baseless.   The complainant was comfortably discharged from the hospital on 12.7.2013 by the respondent no.1 and she never reported back for the post operative follow up till 19.7.2013 and after the ultrasound investigation she was advised admission but she refused and went to her home.  When during the exploration a serious complication was noticed, which had occurred due to the carelessness of the patient, the same was immediately reported to the sister of the patient/complainant.  The respondent no.1 accompanied the patient and her attendants to higher institute keeping in view his pious duty to provide her medical aid on the way and she was operated by the doctors of Fortis Hospital.  The respondent no.1 has denied the fact that he left defects by removing the uterus without caring to control the bleeding and other defects left in the abdomen.  The operation was successful but the complainant did not care herself as was advised by the respondent no.1 at the time of her discharge on 12.7.2013.  The complainant developed infection due to her own carelessness and she is leveling baseless allegations against the respondent no.1. There was no fault of any kind on the part of the respondent no.1 while treating the complainant. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any kind of compensation from the respondents

 

4.        After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 doctor.  From the material available on the case file, it is established that the complainant was discharged by the respondent on 12.7.2013 comfortably and she never reported back for the post operative follow up till 19.7.2013.  If the respondent no.1 had accompanied the patient and her attendants to higher institute keeping in view his pious duty to provide her medical aid on the way, the respondent no.1 cannot be held deficient in any manner.  The complainant has failed to produce any expert opinion of any doctor in support of her case.  So, merely on the allegations as alleged by the complainant, this Forum is unable to held the respondent no.1 deficient in his services.  It is very easy to blame any person, but at the same time, it is very difficult to prove the same because an elaborate, cogent and expert evidence is required to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the doctor.  In the absence of any expert opinion from the side of the complainant, we find no force in the present complaint and thus, we have no hesitation in dismissing the present complaint.  We order accordingly.

          The parties are left to bear their own costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:20.11.2015