Delhi

West Delhi

CC/11/176

ASHA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. JANAKRAJ - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jun 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution:30.03.2011

Complaint Case. No.176/11                                           Date of order:08.06.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Smt. Asha Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Bachan R/o Jhuggi No.F.536, CSA Colony, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052- permanent resident of : Village Singhada P.S. GambhirPur District – Azamgarh, U.P.                                                                                                                                   Complainant

VERSUS

1.        Dr. JanakrajSabharwal, Dental Clinic and Surgical Centre, KG-1/424 Sonia Cinema, (PVR) Road, VikasPuri, New Delhi.

                                                                                                            Opposite party no.1

2.        Dr. Rakesh K. Kantoor, Kantoor Maternity & Medical Centre, 11/396 Sunder Vihar, Opp. White House, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi-110087.

                                                                                                            Opposite party no.2

3.        The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.22, 28/12 East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.

                                                                                                            Opposite party no.3

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Smt. Asha Devi named above here in the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for directions to Dr. JanakrajSabharwal and others hereinafter referred as the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of un-timely death of her husband late Shri Ram Bachan due to medical negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in serviceon the part of  the opposite parties no.1 and 2.

The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint as stated are that Shri Ram Bachan deceased husband of the complainant was employed with Taraju Company at Sharjah, Dubai on monthly salary of Rs.17,000/-. He felt pain at left side of the teeth in his mouth. On 05.01.2009he visited Ajman University of Science and Technology at Ajman Dubai. The doctors diagnosed incisional biopsy and referred him to the opposite party no.1.

That on  20.01.09 he approached the opposite party no.1 for treatment with all medical record. He started treatment. The opposite party no.1 instead of proper treatment and medical aid to the deceased unnecessarily did all blood tests and x-ray of chest etc. but failed to give proper treatment. The opposite party no.1 on 17.02.09 malafidely  just to harm and harass the deceased referred him to the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.1 is BDS and can treat teeth problem. But he malafidely and intentionally continued treatment of the deceased and extorted a sum of Rs.30,000/-upto 17.02.09.

That on 23.02.09 the opposite party no.2 recommended hospitalization of the deceased. Therefore,  on 24.02.09 at 9.00 a.m. he was admitted for surgical excision and biopsy at Kantoor Maternity and Medical Centre of the opposite party no.2. The deceasedwas discharged on 25.02.09. On 27.02.09 Dr. Lal Pathology Lab gave report. On 04.03.09 his excision and biopsyreport was summarized and the opposite party-2 all of a sudden asked the deceased to go toSafdarjung Hospital for radiotherapy. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 with malafide intention and to extract money charged of Rs.50,000/- from the deceased.

That both the opposite parties no.1 and 2 adopted unfair trade practice and committed medical negligence just to extort money from the deceased  and on account of unfair trade practice and medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 Shri Ram Bachan husband of the complainant died on 03.02.10. Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of Shri Ram Bachan husband of the complainant due to unfair trade practice and medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. and opposite party no.3 is liable to indemnify the insured the opposite parties no.1 and 2 being insurer.

Notices of the complaint weresent to the opposite parties. The opposite party no.1 filed reply of the complaint while raising preliminary objections of limitation, cause of action, complaint is false, frivolous and vexatiousand abuse of process of law and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

On merits the opposite party no.1 admitted that in the prescription slip of Ajman University of Science and Technology, Ajman Dubai it was indicated that “incisional biopsy” was carried out.But asserted that the deceased also visited Dr. Sheeba Mathews Dental Surgeon, Sharjha, UAE with ulcer on the inner cheek. There was no sign  of radiographic  infiltration. There was no diagnose of incisional biopsy.  However, it is admitted that on 20.01.09 the deceased came to the opposite  party no.1   He was advised  for  following investigations:-

1. Digital x-ray orthopentomogram of Jaws.
2. Blood Sugar fasting and PP because the wound had not healed since last 2 ½ months.
3. Haemoglobin.
4. Bleeding time and clotting time and TLC/DLC.

The investigations were necessary for diagnosis and further treatment of the deceased. The patient was prescribed medicines  forhealing wound and pain for 20 days. He was also advised to stop tobacco, pan chewing, alcohol consuming and chillies etc. The patient on 23.01.09 visited the opposite party no.1 to show investigation reports and reported improvement in pain. The patient was also found suffering from blood sugar. He was advised to consult Physician for Management and Diabetics.

That on 10.02.09, as the wound was not healing, the opposite party no.1 advised the patient certain investigations necessary to obtain for fitness for general anaesthesia as the patient was non-cooperative for biopsy under local anaesthesia. The patient on 17.02.09 showed the reports to the opposite party no.1. Therefore, he was referred to the opposite party no.2 a qualified anesthetist for PAC as the patient required “surgical excision atbiopsy intra orally (LT) angle region of the mandible”.

That on 23.02.09 the patient brought PAC report of the opposite party no.2 to the opposite party no.1 and after examining the reports, the patient was confirmed that he required “surgical  excision at biopsy intra orally (LT) angle region of the mandible”. The lesion was quite small in size.It was planned to perform “excisional biopsy” with consent of the patient. Therefore, the patient was advised to undergo certain tests of x-ray chest, blood tests to obtain fitness of GA and few pathological and other tests to judge fitness and suitability of the patient to undergo surgical procedure under general anaesthesia and was referred to the opposite party no.2.

That the patient  was admitted in the medical centre of the opposite  party no.2 to carry out the procedure. The patient was found fit to undergo the procedure. Therefore, the opposite parties no.1 and 2  again explained the procedure, risks and possibility of treatment of the patient.

That after the treatment and procedure the patient was discharged on 25.02.09 with follow up on 27.02.09 but the patient did not turnup. He came on 04.03.09 with excisional biopsy report dated 27.02.09 of Dr. Lal Path Lab. The report revealedsuggestive of invasive well to moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinomafor which treatment is surgical/ radiotherapy. Therefore, the patient was advised to take consultation from the specialist at Safdarjung Hospital/ Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Oncology at the earliest. The allegations  aremalafide and levelledjust to harm and harass the opposite party. There is no unfair trade practice and medical negligence on the part of the opposite party no.1. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 treated the patient as per prescribed practice to the  best of their knowledge and ability. There is no unfair trade practice and medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. All other allegations of the complaint are vehementlydenied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The opposite party no.2 also filed separate reply while contesting the complaint on the line of the opposite party no.1. The opposite partyno.2  denied all the allegations of the complaint and asserted that the patient was treated by qualified medical practitioner as per prescribed procedure. There is no medical negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The opposite party no.3 also filed reply to the complaint denying all the allegations of the complaint and asserted that they are not liable to pay any compensation. Whereas they are liable to indemnify the insured opposite party no. 1 and 2.

 The complainant  filed rejoinder to the replies of the opposite parties no. 1  and 2 while controverting stand of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2  and reiterating her stand taken in the complaint. She again prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation for Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of her husband due to medical negligence of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2.

When Smt. Asha Devi complainantwas asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit. She tendered in evidence her affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. She also relied upon prescription form  of Ajman University of Science and Technology with pathology reports and a letter of reference, prescription slip  of Dr. J.R. Sabharwal, opposite party no. 1 from  20.01.2009 to 17.02.2009, Dr. LalPath Lab  reports, prescription slip,  admission  record, discharge certificate with pathology reports ofSafdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.

When Dr. J.R. Sabharwal  opposite party no. 1 was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, he tendered  in evidence  his affidavit  narrating  the  facts of  his reply.  He also relied upon  RW1/1 degree of MDS, RW1/2 registration certificate  of Delhi Dental Council, insurance policy no. 271900/48/2008/4170 and cover note no. 270000439049.

When Dr. Rakesh Kumar Kantoor opposite party  no.2 was asked to lead  evidence  by way of  affidavit,  he tendered  his affidavit  narrating  facts of his reply. He also relied upon insurance policy no. 040100/46/08/35/00003659,degree of Doctor of medicine,  diploma in anaesthesiology, registration certificate with Delhi Medical Council and Director of Health  Services, Govt. of NCT  of Delhi,  admission and discharge  record with prescription slips and pathology report.

The parties also submitted written arguments in support of their  respective contentions.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully and thoroughly. 

It is worth mentioning here that on request of the complainant opinion fromMedical Expert Board of Maulana Azad Institute of  DentalScience  New Delhiwas taken.  The Medical Expert Board consisting of three doctors gave following report:-

“Based  on the records provided, there  is no medical negligence”

Except  affidavit of Smt. Asha Devi complainant there is no evidence of  medical negligence  against the opposite parties.  The affidavit of Smt. Asha Devi complainant is rebutted by affidavit of Dr. J.R. Sabharwal opposite party no.1  and Dr. Rakesh Kumar Kantoor opposite party no. 2. There is no expert opinion on behalf of the complainant.  The complainant has alleged medical negligence on the part of the opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 2.  The opposite parties no. 1 & 2 have denied the allegations  of medical negligence and   have asserted that the deceased  was treated  with utmost  care and precaution under prescribed procedure by experienced professionals.  There is no reason to disbelieve the Medical Expert   Board opinion of Maulana Azad Dental Institute.  Wherein it isspecifically mentioned that apparently there is no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties in treatmentof the deceased.

There is no cogent and convincing evidence on behalf of the complainant to prove medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties  no. 1 and 2.

Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint.  The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order pronounced on : 08.06.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

         

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT