Punjab

Patiala

CC/17/320

Parminder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Manish Sehgal - Opp.Party(s)

Smt Daljinder Pal Kaur

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 320/2017
Date of Institution	:	23.8.2017
Date of Decision	:	24.4.2023

 

 

Parminder Kaur aged about 36 years wife of Jaspreet Singh R/o H.No.83, Anand Nagar, Extension A, Patiala.    

 

                                                                                      …………...Complainant

 

                                      Versus

 

1.       Dr.Manish Sehgal, (M.S.) C/o Amar Hospital, 8 Income Tax Office Road, Bank Colony, Patiala-147001.

2.       CEO/Hospital Authorities, Amar Hospital, 8 Income Tax Office Road, Bank Colony, Patiala-147001 through its Medical Director.

3.       The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 4E/14 Azad Bhawan, Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi-110055.     

                                                                                      …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.B.S.Tiwana, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Harvinder Shukla, counsel for OP No.1.

                             Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.

                             Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, counsel for OP No.3.                                

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Parminder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Dr.Manish Sehgal and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows
3. That complainant met with an accident on 23.2.2017 at about 5.10PM near Ashoka Laboratory and suffered severe injuries on her left foot and bruises on her body. She was taken to Amar Hospital by some passerby, where she was attended by Dr.Manish Sehgal. Said doctor just cleaned the soft tissue of the left foot, applied general treatment and discharged her in hurry instead of treating her foot injury in emergency. Unnecessarily bed charges, plastic surgery charges, radiology OT charges amounting to Rs.13000/- were imposed. No x-ray of leg or foot was conducted by the doctor nor the complainant was referred to any other doctor for the same.
4. On 28.2.2017, complainant again visited Amar Hospital and complained severe pain in her left foot, but on that day also Dr.Manish Sehgal only did dressing on left foot. Hospital authorities charged Rs.200/- for the same and Rs.150/- for physiotherapist doctor. She was asked for follow up on 4.3.2017.On 4.3.2017 she went for follow up when treating doctor told her that if she is not satisfied with their treatment then she may go to any other hospital.
5. Thereafter, on 11.3.2017 complainant went to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for treatment where x-ray of the left foot was conducted and fracture was discovered in the left foot and was plastered. That complainant had to undergo physical and mental suffering for the negligence, carelessness and professional misconduct committed by Dr.Munish Sehgal and the Amar Hospital staff/management. Complainant also served legal notice on 23.5.2017 to the OPs, who gave reply to the same having denied all the facts. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint.
6. Initially notice of the complaint was given to OPs No.1&2. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement having contested the complaint, whereas, none appeared on behalf of OP no.2 despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. Application for impleading Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., filed by ld. counsel for OP No.1 was allowed and this party was impleaded as OP No.3. Thereafter, upon notice, it appeared through counsel and filed written statement.
7. In the written statement, filed by OP No.1, it raised various preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that patient Parminder Kaur was admitted in the emergency ward of Amar Hospital on 23.2.2017 at 6:05PM as a case of a fall from the scooter. She was walking when she was entered the emergency ward. She complained severe headache, facial abrasion, pain in both knees with abrasions, pain in left foot with a wound present. On examination,  4cm laceration over the left foot dorsal surface was noticed in addition to soft tissue hematoma over the scalp (occipital region) with dermal deep abrasions on the face and knees. Movements assessed around the ankle joint were normal, active and passive movements of toes were normal. Neuro vascular & sensory status of both feet was normal. Weight bearing over the lower limbs was normally present and patient was ambulatory (walking). All other systematic examination i.e. ENT, CVS, genitourinary, hematologic, muscle, skeletal, neurologic were normal. CT scan of the head was carried out which was satisfactory. Antibiotics, pain relief, injection T.T. were given. Abrasions over face, keens were cleaned. Soft tissue repair over foot was done with strict aseptic precautions and dressings were applied over scalp, face, knees & foot. Thereafter, patient was monitored in the emergency ward and was subsequently discharged at 8.32PM on the same day after stabilization with advice to report back immediately in the event of any bleeding, pain, swelling or giddiness. However, the patient did not turn up with any complaints to the hospital for 5 days which itself indicates that patient was recovering. She was called for follow up on 25.2.2017 but she did not turn up on date of follow up rather came 3 days later i.e. on 28.2.2017. Patient was immediately attended in the OPD, her dressings were changed, wounds were healing and patient was observed recovering. She was further called for follow up on 4.3.2017, when stitches were removed. After that complainant never came back with any complaints. The patient might have got the fracture afterwards. There is no negligence, unfair trade practice, deficiency of service or breach of duty of care on the part of OP No.1.After denying all other averments, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
8. In the written statement, filed by OP no.3, it is submitted that Professional Indemnity-Doctors-Individual-Endorsement Schedule policy for the period 12.5.2016 to 11.5.2017 was issued in favor of OP no.2 i.e. Dr.Manish Sehgal, for a sum of Rs.10 Lakh .It is averred that complainant is not entitled for any compensation, since there has been no deficiency of any service on the part of Dr.Manish Sehgal, who is very experienced and reputed doctor in his field. After denying all other averments, OP No.3 also prayed for dismissal of complaint.
9. In evidence, complainant with her counsel tendered her affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents,Exs.C1 to C11 and closed evidence.
10. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence, Ex.OPB affidavit of Dr.Manish Sehgal alongwith documents, Ex.OP2 copy of registration certificate of Dr.Manish Sehgal with Pb.Medical Council,Ex.OP3 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP4 copy of literature supporting the case and closed evidence.
11. Ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of  Mukesh Kumar, Divisional Manager, OIC alongwith document,Ex.OP1 copy of insurance policy and closed evidence.
12. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13. Complainant met with an accident on 23.2.2017 and was admitted in the hospital being run by OP No.2 wherein she was treated by OP No.1 for the injury on the left foot and was advised medications by OP No.1 for 5 days with the remarks that soft tissue injury reported and the condition of location is satisfactory at discharge. Complainant visited the hospital of OP No.2 again on 28.2.2017 after a period of 5 days with the complaint of severe pain in the left foot and was attended by OP No.1.Condition of the complainant did not improve as the pain persisted.
14. She visited a hospital run by PHSC on 11.3.2017 as per receipts Exs.C6 & Ex.C7/2, wherein complainant reported complaint in the spine i.e. problem of cervical and was treated accordingly. Complainant did not complain regarding any issue in the foot.
15. The complainant again visited Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala on 23.3.2017 vide Ex.C7/1 wherein the complaint of pain in the left foot was reported by the complainant. Complainant was then advised medications for 5-7 days and was asked to report after 10 days. Complainant again visited hospital on 3.5.2017 but no x-ray was conducted even on that day ( as no such record has been produced by the complainant) and complainant was further advised medication. Complainant had then produced an X-ray dated 18.5.2017 conducted on her at Govt. Rajindra Hospital, against registration No.13154.
16. Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that OP No.1 was deficient as no x-ray was conducted on the foot of the complainant when the complainant reported in the hospital of OP No.2 immediately after the accident on 23.2.2017. Ld. counsel has further argued that fracture in the left foot was discovered on 23.3.2017 when an x-ray was conducted at Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. However, this argument of ld. counsel for the complainant is not justified as the complainant had herself produced the x-ray dated 18.5.2017 and not 11.3.2017.Ld. counsel has further argued that OP No.1 is a plastic surgeon and not an orthopedician surgeon  and as such was not qualified to treat the complainant and was deficient in the treatment of the complainant.
17. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the complainant reported in the hospital of OP No.1 immediately after the accident. Complainant reported severe headache with facial abrasion, pain in both knees with abrasions and pain in left foot. The abrasions were cleaned and complainant was treated for damage to the soft tissue in the left foot. The complainant was ambulatory and vital parameters of the complainant were normal. CT scan of the head was carried out which was also found to be normal. Complainant was further treated on 28.2.2017 and 4.3.2017 when the stitches in the foot were removed and all the wounds had healed by then.
18. Ld. counsel for OP no.1 has argued that complainant visited OP no.1 on 28.2.2017 and 4.3.2017 as she was satisfied with the performance of OP No.1 and did not complain of any wrong doings and never reported back after 4.3.2017. Complainant was promptly attended and was given treatment as per normal procedure in case of such wounds whenever she visited the OP.
19. OP No.1 has also placed on record copies of registration of OP No.1 with Punjab Medical Council and qualifications as per which OP No.1 is holder of MCH degree, Ex.OP2, which is super specialization in the field of plastic surgery and is highly qualified person. The allegation of the complainant that OP no.1 was not a qualified orthopedician and was not qualified to treat the complainant is not justified as OP No.1 is the holder of the higher qualification in terms of holder of a degree of MCH in plastic surgery. Further allegation of the complainant that no x-ray was conducted by OP No.1 at the time of accident and the patient was not treated for hair line fracture in the bone of the left foot also appears to be not justified as the complainant was ambulatory and bearing her weight and was clinically examined and found OK and was treated for wounds/abrasions and discharged after few hours as complainant was found to be in stable condition.  The allegation of the complainant that fracture was detected at the time of x-ray conducted in the Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala on 11.3.2017 is also not justified as complainant has not produced any such record/ x-ray of the said date on the record. In fact complainant had produced the  x-ray dated 18.5.2017 conducted in Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala i.e. almost after a period of three months from the date of accident. The complainant has also failed to prove her case with any cogent and convincing evidence or through an expert indicating that the fracture in the bone was not conducted by OP No.1 immediately after the accident on 23.2.2017 and was deficient in treating the complainant.
20. He has also placed on record copy of the insurance policy, Ex.OP3 as per which OP No.1 was insured for professional indemnity through the insurance company. Further a medical practitioner would be liable for deficiency only where his conduct falls below that of standards of reasonable competent practitioner in his field. In terms of diagnosis and treatment, there are bound to be differences of opinion between the professional doctors, however, the doctor cannot be held responsible because his opinion may differ from that of the other professional doctor. In the instant case no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 could be proved by the complainant. In fact, the complainant was duly attended to by OP No.1 whenever she visited the hospital for treatment.
21. In view of the discussion above, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.  Parties are to bear their own costs.
22.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President