Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Sahil has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant met with an accident and he sustained injuries on his right feet.  The complainant contacted Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties asked the complainant that there will be crafting of the feet of the complainant and then it will become normal. The complainant remained admitted in the hospital of Opposite Parties. i.e. Hargun Hospital, Amritsar from 24.10.2013 to 5.11.2013. The Opposite Parties conducted the operation  of the right feet of the complainant and charged Rs.1,43,600/- from the complainant, but the right feet of the complainant did not became successful and the complainant again admitted in the hospital on 18.11.2013 and was discharged on 22.11.2013 and Opposite Parties again charged Rs.28000/- from the complainant. In all, the Opposite Parties charged Rs.2,50,000/- for getting the treatment of his right feet. But however, again the operation conducted by the Opposite Parties could not become successful and the right feet of the complainant has totally damaged and is not in working condition. Lateron, the complainant has come to know that the Opposite Parties and their assistant were not competent  for crafting as they were not having diploma.  Due to the negligence in crafting the right feet of the complainant, the complainant has suffered financial loss for more than Rs.10 lacs besides the expenses incurred by him for getting the treatment.    Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.15 lacs as compensation to the complainant due to the negligence committed by them while conducting operations of the right feet of the complainant.

b)      Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

c)       Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled may also be granted to him.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties No.1, 2  appeared and contested the   complaint by filing the joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that as per the record of Hargun Hospital, patient Sahil  complainant came to the Opposite Party No.1 hospital on 24.10.2013 at 3.30 PM with the alleged history of road side accident with

truck tyre passed over right foot about 8 days ago and the patient had crush injury right foot with skin loss over dorsum of foot, sole and heel of foot. He had been under treatment at some local hospital at Batala on OPD basis and got dressings done over there (no record produced).  Now he came to Opposite Party No.1 hospital for further management. No other history was given by the said patient. After taking due consent of the patient himself for treatment, he was admitted in hospital for treatment of the injured foot at registration No. 4899 on 24.10.2013. The patient required surgical treatment for the injured foot by plastic surgeon.  Immediate treatment was started by way of requisite investigations and other treatment. The patient was accordingly examined properly and investigated by the doctors of the hospital. During the course of treatment in the hospital, after taking consent of the patient himself, taking all aseptic precautions, on 25.10.2013, after explaining line of treatment and surgery and taking consent thereof, under aseptic conditions, in the fully equipped operation theatre of the O.P.1 hospital the patient was operated for his accidental injuries to the right foot by Dr.Gurinder Singh, M.B.B.S., M.S. (Surgery), M.Ch (Plastic Surgery) under general anaesthesia given and managed by Dr.Sukeerat Singh, M.D.Anaesthesia, assisted by assistant surgeon Dr.Amanpreet Singh and other paramedic team. During the surgery, debridement of the wound was done, posterior tibial vessel explored and segment radied for anastomosis Left L-D muscle alongwith small skin paddle hamested on thoraco dorsal vessels. Flap inset to cover the sole of the foot and flap vessels anastmosed with posterior tibial vessels (artery end to side & vein end to end with venae commitantae) STSG harvested from left thigh and stored to be applied later. ASD with PVC splint applied. LD flap donor site closed primarily over vacuum drain & ASD done.  Post-operative period in the hospital was uneventful and recovery of the surgery done on 25.10.2013 was satisfactory. However, since the patient came for repair of the foot which was badly crushed, and had open wound, and flap cover was given to give shape to the injured foot and further save it from infection and gangrene, the repair could not have been done in single surgery Thus, for injured and operated foot was to become in proper condition to be re-operated again for further skin grating However, on 6.11 2013, the attendants of the patient (his father as well as his brother) got him discharged against medical advise as since the operated limb was still in recovery phase, there was danger of its getting infected and developing other complications After giving written LAMA consent, the attendants got the patient discharged from the hospital. On 18.11 2013, the said patient presented himself in the hospital again admission for skin grafting of the already operated right foot on admission at Regd No 4978 the patient was accordingly examined properly and investigated by the doctors of the hospital During the course of treatment in the hospital, after taking consent of the patient himself, taking all aseptic precautions. on 19 11 2013, after explaining line of treatment and surgery and taking consent thereof, under aseptic conditions, in the fully equipped operation theatre of the O P 1 hospital the patient was operated for skin grafting on the accidental injuries of right foot by Dr Gurinder Singh, M BBS., MS (Surgery) M.Ch (Plastic Surgery) under spinal anaesthesia given and managed by Dr Sukeerat Singh, MD Anaesthesia, and other paramedic team During this surgery, wound curettage was done STSG harvested from left thigh placed over the wound ASD with POP splnt applied immediate post-operated period was satisfactory, The post-surgery period of the patient in the hospital was satisfactory, and since the recovery of wound was in satisfactory progress, and the same was in healthy condition with graft setting on 22 11 2013, thus the patient was discharged from the hospital in satisfactory condition, to be called in regular follow up The patient had been coming in the hospital in the post-operative period a few times for change of dressing of the operated foot, when recovery of the operated foot was satisfactory as per extent of injury. The record of OPD visit is with the patient During all these visits, the patient did not complain of any unusual problem. Subsequently, the patient was lost in follow-up and has further concealed record of such OPD advice. At the outset, answering opposite parties denies all the allegations contained in the complaint, except those, which are specifically admitted hereinafter in this reply, and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed. It is also submitted that anything stated in the complaint contrary to and/or inconsistent with what is stated in the present written statement be deemed to be expressly denied. Before traversing in detail the several material allegations, averments and contentions made in the complaint under reply, the answering opposite parties submits the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present complaint as preliminary objections. The purported complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer" under the act 'ibid' qua answering Opposite Parties. As per the allegations of the purported complainant, the in hand is not a 'consumer dispute to seek relief within parameters or as per provisions of the 'act 'ibid. The  purported complainant is barred. The complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under the law against the replying Opposite Parties Since no evidence based allegation has been leveled in the complaint against replying Opposite Parties purported complainant is not entitled for any relief against replying Opposite Parties. The present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of this Forum as purported complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. Various material facts have been concealed & distorted version of the facts have been deliberately presented to pressurize and harass replying Opposite Parties. There is no evidence worth its name to show that there is any negligence or deficiency or delay in service at the hands of the replying Opposite Parties. During the course of treatment of the patient in question during relevant times, nor any act of deficiency or negligence or delay or omission or commission was committed as per treatment record of the said patient, who was treated in Hargun Hospital during relevant times, and treatment in question was performed in the said hospital on standard scientific lines as per condition of the patient by fully competent, qualified and well trained experienced doctors and para medical staff of the hospital. The process of "Consumer Fora cannot become a tool at the hands of unscrupulous persons who file complaint merely with a view to extract money in the garb of compensation The mere oral and bald statement of purported complainant that there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of replying Opposite Parties. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       Opposite Party No.3  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the  complaint is not legally maintainable as the complainant has miserably fated to give detailed particulars regarding any alleged medical negligence on the part of answering Opposite Party  and even from the perusal of the entire complaint, it become quite evident that the pleas raised are vague ambiguous, without any basis much less any cogent and convincing material has been placed on record by the complainant in order to substantiate the pleas as alleged in the complaint and even the complainant has failed to place on record any medical evidence in order to show any lapse on the part of opposite parties as envisaged under the law and as such the present complaint merits dismissal on this simple score only. No cause of action has arisen to the complainant against the replying opposite party to file the present complaint and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes quite evident that no liability can be fastened upon the replying opposite party as the replying opposite party has unnecessarily been arrayed as party to the complaint without any basis and as such, the present complain merits dismissal even on this simple score. On merits,  The answering Opposite Party  has taken up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C10  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Dr.Gurwinder Singh Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex. OP1,2/2 to Ex.Op1,2/9 and affidavit of Dr.Ravi Kumar Mahajan Ex.OP1,2/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

6.       Opposite Party No.3  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Dheeraj Seth, Divisional Manager Ex.OP3/1 alongwith document Ex.OP3/2  and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3.

7.       After tendering evidence, none appeared on behalf of the complainant though in the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to initially 9.5.2017, 12.5.2017, 23.05.2017, 30.5.2017, 6.6.2017, 24.6.2017, 29.6.2017, and then for today i.e.4.7.2017. It appears that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting his case.  But however, we  have heard the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

8.       Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has repelled the contents of the complaint made by the complainant and reiterated the facts narrated in the written reply as well as in duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 of Dr.Gurwinder Singh and argued that as per the record of Hargun Hospital, the patient Sahil  complainant came to the Opposite Party No.1 hospital on 24.10.2013 at 3.30 PM with the alleged history of road side accident with truck tyre passed over right foot about 8 days ago and the patient had crush injury right foot with skin loss over dorsum of foot, sole and heel of foot. He had been under treatment at some local hospital at Batala on OPD basis and got dressings done over there (no record produced).  Now he came to Opposite Party No.1 hospital for further management. No other history was given by the said patient. After taking due consent of the patient himself for treatment, he was admitted in hospital for treatment of the injured foot at registration No. 4899 on 24.10.2013. The patient required surgical treatment for the injured foot by plastic surgeon.  Immediate treatment was started by way of requisite investigations and other treatment. The patient was accordingly examined properly and investigated by the doctors of the hospital. During the course of treatment in the hospital, after taking consent of the patient himself, taking all aseptic precautions, on 25.10.2013, after explaining line of treatment and surgery and taking consent thereof, under aseptic conditions, in the fully equipped operation theatre of the O.P.1 hospital the patient was operated for his accidental injuries to the right foot by Dr.Gurinder Singh, M.B.B.S., M.S. (Surgery), M.Ch (Plastic Surgery) under general anaesthesia given and managed by Dr.Sukeerat Singh, M.D.Anaesthesia, assisted by assistant surgeon Dr.Amanpreet Singh and other paramedic team. During the surgery, debridement of the wound was done, posterior tibial vessel explored and segment radied for anastomosis Left L-D muscle alongwith small skin paddle hamested on thoraco dorsal vessels. Flap inset to cover the sole of the foot and flap vessels anastmosed with posterior tibial vessels (artery end to side & vein end to end with venae commitantae) STSG harvested from left thigh and stored to be applied later. ASD with PVC splint applied. LD flap donor site closed primarily over vacuum drain & ASD done.  Post-operative period in the hospital was uneventful and recovery of the surgery done on 25.10.2013 was satisfactory. However, since the patient came for repair of the foot which was badly crushed, and had open wound, and flap cover was given to give shape to the injured foot and further save it from infection and gangrene, the repair could not have been done in single surgery Thus, for injured and operated foot was to become in proper condition to be re-operated again for further skin grating However, on 6.11 2013, the attendants of the patient (his father as well as his brother) got him discharged against medical advise as since the operated limb was still in recovery phase, there was danger of its getting infected and developing other complications After giving written LAMA consent, the attendants got the patient discharged from the hospital. On 18.11 2013, the said patient presented himself in the hospital again admission for skin grafting of the already operated right foot on admission at Regd No 4978 the patient was accordingly examined properly and investigated by the doctors of the hospital During the course of treatment in the hospital, after taking consent of the patient himself, taking all aseptic precautions. on 19 11 2013, after explaining line of treatment and surgery and taking consent thereof, under aseptic conditions, in the fully equipped operation theatre of the O P 1 hospital the patient was operated for skin grafting on the accidental injuries of right foot by Dr Gurinder Singh, M BBS., MS (Surgery) M.Ch (Plastic Surgery) under spinal anaesthesia given and managed by Dr Sukeerat Singh, MD Anaesthesia, and other paramedic team During this surgery, wound curettage was done STSG harvested from left thigh placed over the wound ASD with POP splnt applied immediate post-operated period was satisfactory, The post-surgery period of the patient in the hospital was satisfactory, and since the recovery of wound was in satisfactory progress, and the same was in healthy condition with graft setting on 22 11 2013, thus the patient was discharged from the hospital in satisfactory condition, to be called in regular follow up The patient had been coming in the hospital in the post-operative period a few times for change of dressing of the operated foot, when recovery of the operated foot was satisfactory as per extent of injury. The record of OPD visit is with the patient During all these visits, the patient did not complain of any unusual problem. Subsequently, the patient was lost in follow-up and has further concealed record of such OPD advice. At the outset, answering opposite parties denies all the allegations contained in the complaint, except those, which are specifically admitted hereinafter in this reply, and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed. It is also submitted that anything stated in the complaint contrary to and/or inconsistent with what is stated in the present written statement be deemed to be expressly denied. Before traversing in detail the several material allegations, averments and contentions made in the complaint under reply, the answering opposite parties submits the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present complaint as preliminary objections. The purported complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer" under the act 'ibid' qua answering Opposite Parties. As per the allegations of the purported complainant, the in hand is not a 'consumer dispute to seek relief within parameters or as per provisions of the 'act 'ibid. The  purported complainant is barred. That the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under the law against the replying Opposite Parties Since no evidence based allegation has been leveled in the complaint against replying Opposite Parties purported complainant is not entitled for any relief against replying Opposite Parties. The present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of this Forum as purported complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. Various material facts have been concealed & distorted version of the facts have been deliberately presented to pressurize and harass replying Opposite Parties. There is no evidence worth its name to show that there is any negligence or deficiency or delay in service at the hands of the replying Opposite Parties. During the course of treatment of the patient in question during relevant times, nor any act of deficiency or negligence or delay or omission or commission was committed as per treatment record of the said patient, who was treated in Hargun Hospital during relevant times, and treatment in question was performed in the said hospital on standard scientific lines as per condition of the patient by fully competent, qualified and well trained experienced doctors and para medical staff of the hospital. The process of "Consumer Fora cannot become a tool at the hands of unscrupulous persons who file complaint merely with a view to extract money in the garb of compensation The mere oral and bald statement of purported complainant that there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of replying Opposite Parties. To defend its case, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have tendered the documents on record i.e. copy of the degree of M.S. of Dr.Gurwinder Singh as Ex.OP1,2/2, affidavit of Dr.Gurinder Singh Ex.OP1,2/3, copy of degree of M.S.of Dr.Gurinder Singh Ex.Op1,2/4, copy of degree of Chirurgery in the subject of plastic surgery of Dr.Guridner Singh Ex.OP1,2/5, copy of treatmentd record Ex.OP.1,2/6, copy of consent of LAMA Ex.OP1,.2/7, copy of treatment record Ex.OP1,2/8 and affidavit of Dr.Ravi Kumar Mahajan Ex.OP1,2/9. On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of the complainant to prove his case despite repeated adjournments and opportunities provided to the complainant to prove his case. In view of this, it appears  that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting his case and we do not find any deficiency and negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum