CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.796/2006
SMT. MONA
W/O SH. SHABBIR HUSSAIN
R/O 16/65, CHURIA MOHALLA,
BENGALI COLONY, TUGHLAKABAD VILLAGE,
NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- DR. M.J. AKBAR
PROP. OF M/S AKBAR NURSING HOME,
J-7, BATLA HOUSE, NEAR MASJID KHALILULLAH,
JAMIA NAGAR, OKHLA, NEW DELHI-110025
- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CAPITOL CINEMA BUILDING,
VIDHAN SABHA MARG, LUCKNOW
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:23.08.2018
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
This complaint by Smt. Mona, the complainant, has been against Dr. M.J. Akbar Prop. of M/s Akbar Nursing Home, alleging that her daughter Visaka was suffering from neck-pain and headache and used to have continuous high temperature for last months and she was taken to the OP on 3.8.2006. The OP examined her daughter and asked them to pay Rs.13,500/- for treatment and assured her that she would be fully cured within 20 days. It is submitted that the complainant paid Rs.13,300/- on different dates and the complainant was called on many dates to his clinic and prescribed medicine to be purchased from the market though initially OP stated that Rs.13,500/- is for treatment and medicines. On 19.9.2006, the complainant again visited the OP for check up of his daughter and then the OP asked for Rs.5000/- more for treatment, to which the complainant objected and told him that there is no improvement in the condition of the daughter and her condition has further deteriorated. Upon hearing this, the OP called his peon by name Alam and one other person and asked them to throw the complainant out of the hospital, and she was dragged out of the hospital and Alam even slapped her. The complainant called the Police and she was taken to P.S. Okhla Industrial Area but no action was taken against the OP. The complainant further submits that the OP has been negligent in performing the treatment and there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant prayed that the OP be directed to refund the sum of Rs.13,300/- to the Op with damages for his deficient service.
In reply, the OP submitted that the complainant along with her daughter Vishakha approached the OP who is a qualified Senior Consultant – Acupuncture, Gold Medalist, M.D. Chinese (Medicine) on 3.8.2006, as she was suffering from epilepsy and was under the treatment of some other doctor, and the doctor had advised her the medicine “Eptoin – 100 mg” and this fact had been informed by the complainant to the OP. It is submitted that the complainant had informed him that her daughter is taking this medicine regularly. It is submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the OP and hence the complainant is not maintainable. It is submitted that the condition of the daughter of the complainant was very bad on 3.8.2006 when she approached the OP, and she could not walk, talk, sit and was always down with fever and had severe tremor of neck and vomiting too. It is submitted that the complainant has filed the complaint with a view to harass and extract illegal money from the OP. It is submitted in para 3 of its reply that the OP has charged Rs.10,000/- which was paid by the complainant in instalments and the question of payment of Rs.13,500/- or Rs.13,300/- does not arise.
The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the OP and submitted that all the contents of the reply are wrong and denied, and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the complaint as correct.
Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits and also written arguments in support of their respective version of their case.
We have carefully gone through the case file, and heard oral arguments as well.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had taken her daughter to OP’s hospital and the OP had given her treatment and admittedly charged Rs.10,000/-. The OP had diagnosed her as suffering from Epilepsy, and prescribed her a Tab Eptoin 100 mg. The OP has nowhere recorded the alleged history of her suffering from epilepsy or taking the aforesaid medicine in his prescription.
OP has not conducted any test before coming to the conclusion that the daughter of the complainant was suffering from epilepsy. It significant to note that the complainant took her daughter to LNJP hospital as the condition of her daughter deteriorated where certain tests were conducted and it was revealed that there was a well defined round hypodense ring enhancing lesion of approximately 14 mm diameter in the R fronted to be C marked perilesional odeme. The daughter of the complainant was treated for TB but she was given treatment regarding fits.
The sole question for consideration is whether there was any negligence on the part of treating doctor.
Obviously there was negligence on the part of treating doctor. In fact OP has submitted that he has done doctor of medicine in acupuncture and Chinese medicine and is duly registered with Tamilnadu Acupuncture Council. We are of the view that OP was not competent to prescribe allopathic medicine. A person who has done course in Acupuncture and Chinese medicine is not competent to prescribe allopathic medicine. OP is not registered as medical practitioner in Delhi nor registered with Delhi Medical Council. OP is unable to prove that he is competent to prescribe allopathic medicine. We failed to understand on what basis OP has come to the conclusion that the daughter of the complainant was suffering from epilepsy. No tests were conducted before arriving at such a conclusion.
The most common test used to diagnose epilepsy is Electroencephalogram (EEG). In this test doctors attach electrodes to the scalp of patient and the electrical signal of the brain are recorded by the sensors. Blood test are conducted for Complete Blood Count (CBC). An MRI scan may be carried out for changes in the brain which can cause epilepsy. No tests were conducted, this by itself is medical negligence on the part of OP.
The daughter of the complainant was taken to LNJP hospital where certain tests were conducted. The patient was suffering from TB and also she was treated for fits. It is a clear cut case of negligence on the part of OP.
Alongwith reply OP also moved an application for impleading United Insurance Co. as OP has taken a profession indemnity policy from the aforesaid company. That application was allowed and United Insurance Co. was impleaded as OP-2. OP-2 has admitted about the professional indemnity policy taken by OP-1 and the same was valid during the relevant time.
OP-1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- taken by him from the complainant for treatment of her daughter alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Since OP-1 has taken indemnity policy form OP-2 hence the aforesaid payment is to be paid by OP-2.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
