DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 335 of 2008 Date of Institution: 17.06.2008 Date of Decision: 09.11.2015.
Sudhir Malhotra s/o late Sh.Raj Pal Malhotra, R/o House No.M-9/1E, First Floor, DLF, Phase-II, Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Dr. Jaideep’s Diagnostic Centre, JCM-30, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon through its Proprietor Dr. Jaideep Kumar Sharma (MD, Radio-Diagnosis, AIIMS).
- United India Insurance Company Ltd through its Local Gurgaon, Branch Office at DLF Qutub Plaza, 417, Qutub Plaza, DLF Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Manoj Kumar, Proxy counsel for Ms.Nutan Yadav, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. Rajiv Duggal, Adv for the opposite party No.1
OP-2 exparte.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant suffered fracture in his left shoulder joint and approached the opposite party for diagnosis where x-ray was conducted on 07.05.2008 and the doctor gave the opinion “NO EVIDENCE OF ANY DEFINITE FOCAL BONY/SOFT TISSUE INJURY OR LESION” but even then the complainant continued to have pain and thereafter the complainant approached Max Hospital, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon where fracture in his left shoulder joint was detected. The complainant approached OP-1 to refund the charges which were taken by OP-1 on account of x-ray and other charges but in vain. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint on the aforesaid allegations. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 OP-1 in its written reply has alleged that x-ray was performed by a qualified Radiographer and the Radiographer asked the complainant to take opinion of OP-1 Doctor but the complainant refused. X-ray report was submitted with the advice to perform CT Scan/MRI of the shoulder.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that the complainant suffered fracture in his left shoulder joint and contacted OP-1 for diagnosis where his x-ray was conducted on 07.05.2008 and the doctor gave the opinion “NO EVIDENCE OF ANY DEFINITE FOCAL BONY/SOFT TISSUE INJURY OR LESION” but even then the complainant continued to have pain. Thereafter the complainant approached Max Hospital, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon where fracture in his left shoulder joint was detected. The complainant approached OP-1 to refund the charges which were taken by OP-1 on account of x-ray and other charges but in vain.
5 However, as per contention of OP-1 the x-ray was performed by a qualified Radiographer and the Radiographer asked the complainant to take opinion of OP-1 but the complainant refused.
6 Therefore, no doubt the complainant got his left shoulder x-rayed on 07.05.2008 from OP-1. However, the complainant approached Max Hospital on 12.05.2008 with the history of one month old injury on left shoulder where the fracture was allegedly detected. However, OPD slip (Ann-C) is not supported by any x-ray report or x-ray film. Therefore, it seems that whatever was disclosed by the complainant the same has been mentioned by the doctor of Max Hospital and he gave some medicine but no POP was applied. There is nothing on the file as to on what basis the Max Hospital came to the conclusion that there was fracture in the arm of the complainant and that too in what area because the OP-1 has taken X-ray of arm from AP view and there is nothing on file that the complainant ever disclosed the history of suffering from any such kind of problem. Therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence that there was no negligence on the part of OP-1 and thus, no deficiency can be found out with OP-1.
7 Moreover, in a case of medical negligence the report of expert opinion is necessary as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Martin F.D’Souza Vs Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1. But in the instant case the complainant failed to obtain medical expert report in order to ascertain any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 and thus, for want of any medical expert report the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
09.11.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
