BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      Complaint No.: 270 of 2011.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 16.6.2011.

                                                                      Date of Decision: 13.8.2015.

Sanjay son of Shri Krishan Pal, resident of village Ghuskani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.

                                                                      ….Complainant.   

                                        Versus

Dr. Neeraj Mittal, Prop. of Mittal Heart & Poison Hospital, Meham Chowk Circular Road, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.

…...Opposite Party.

                    COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                    THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

BEFORE: -   Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

Shri Balraj Singh, Member,

Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi , Member,

Present:-   Shri Rajender Yadav, Advocate, for complainant.

       Shri B.L.Sharma, Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that on 28.10.2010 he was admitted in the Hospital of OP due to some ailment and after checking the temperature and B.P. the doctor advised some tests and prescribed some medicines. The complainant alleged that his father purchased the Medicines from open market but the doctor did not accept the same and instead of administering that medicines he relieved from the hospital by making endorsement on the prescription as “medicines purchased from outside so we discharge”.  The complainant further alleged that he was immediately admitted in Dr. J.B.Gupta’s Hospital, Bhiwani on the same day i.e. 28.10.2010 and remained there up to 31.10.2010. The complainant further alleged that during the period of his treatment in J.B.Gupta’s hospital he had purchased the medicines from outside the hospital and the doctor has no objection for purchasing the medicines from outside but the respondent doctor put the complainant as well as his father in serious embarrassment and due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.

2.                 On appearance, the opposite party filed written statement alleging therein that on 28.10.2010 the complainant was admitted in the Hospital and some pathology test was conducted and thereafter prescribed some medicines. It is alleged that the attendant of the patient had brought the medicines advised by the doctor and when the doctor started treatment it was found that the medicines are low category and the salts used in the medicines were not present as described by the doctor. It is also alleged that the father of the complainant was told about the low category of the medicines upon which the attendant pressurized the doctor to use the said local medicines and they also abused the doctor. When the doctor refused to use the said medicines they left the hospital. It is also alleged that the complainant also did not pay the prescribed as well as tests fee to the opposite party. It is also alleged that the shop running in front of hospital is also an open market and the OP has no interest in the shop and the interest of the doctor is only for patient and to use the genuine medicines for proper treatment and fruitful result. It is also alleged that the complainant has prepared false and forged endorsement on the prescribed slip and the OP doctor never made such type of endorsement. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Photostat copy of Prescription of OP Hospital, Photostat copy of legal notice as well as postal receipt, Photostat copies of letters, Photostat copies of   prescription slip, cash memo/bill and payment receipts on account of treatment charges of Dr. J.B.Gupta Hospital,  along with supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the opposite party placed on record Annexure R1 Photostat copy of order dated 29.8.2013 passed by PLA, Bhiwani along with supporting affidavit.

5.                We have gone through the records of the case carefully and written arguments filed by counsels for the parties.

6.                The main allegation of the complainant against the OP is, that the medicines prescribed by the OP were purchased by the father of the complainant from the open market and the OP refused to give those medicines to the complainant as the same were not purchased by the father of the complainant from the hospital of OP then the OP discharged the complainant from the hospital and complainant got admitted in other hospital.

7.                The counsel for the OP has contended that the medicines brought by the father of the complainant were generic and of low category and local made and the salts of the medicines was not as prescribed by the OP and no bill was issued for the medicines. Therefore, the OP refused to use the said local made generic medicine and not admitted the complainant in the hospital. It is further contended that no consultancy fee, charges of tests conducted by the OP has been paid by the complainant.

8.                In the context of the pleadings and written arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The main facts of the case are not disputed. Now question is, whether the refusal on the part of OP to treat the complainant on the ground that the medicines brought by the father of the complainant were not as prescribed by the OP, amounts to deficiency in service?.

9.                Admittedly, the medicines purchased by the father of the complainant were not the same, as prescribed by the OP. Hence, the OP refused to administer the said medicines to the complainant. In case, had the OP given the said medicines to the complainant and the complainant might have suffered any side effect or reaction then the OP was to be blamed. In this regard counsel for the OP stated that Smt. Mewa Devi mother of the complainant had also made a complaint in the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhiwani and drawn our attention to the statement of Shri Rajender Yadav, counsel for the petitioner made by him to withdraw the petition in case of Smt. Mewa Devi Versus Dr. Neeraj Mittal pending before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhiwani, accordingly vide order dated 29.8.2013 the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. He further submitted that the complainant had made complaint to CMO, Bhiwani and M.C.I. New Delhi and on enquiry the allegations made by the complainant against the OP were found false and baseless.

10.              Taking into account of every aspect of the case, we do not found that OP is guilty of any deficiency in service. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: .13.8.2015.                                       (Rajesh Jinda)

                                                                         President,

                                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                                  Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Ansuya Bishnoi)    (Balraj Singh)

Member.                   Member