Delhi

North

CC/127/2021

PRAVEEN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. NIKUNJ & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

RITESH SAREEN

06 May 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. CC/127/2021

 

In the matter of

Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Satpal Singh,

R/o 10710/12, Partap Nagar,

Delhi-110007                                              ...       Complainant

 

Vs

 

Dr. Nikunj Kumar,

Consultant Sinologist, Vimal Ultrasound Centre,

Ekta Market, Khekra,

Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.                               ...       Opposite party No.1

 

M/s Vimal Ultrasound Centre,

Ekta Market, Khekra,    

Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.                               ...       Opposite party No.2

 

ORDER

06.05.2023

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Praveen Kumar, the Complaint against, Dr. Nikunj Kumar, Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 with the allegations of deficiency in services, medical negligence and unfair trade practice.
2. Briefly stated, the Complainant who is working as an Advocate’s Clerk in Tis Hazari, District Courts, has alleged medical negligence by way of wrong diagnosis by Dr Nikunj Kumar (OP-1 herein) and M/s Vimal Ultrasound Centre (Op-2 herein) where OP-1 works for gain.  The Complainant visited his native place, Khekra, Bhagpat, U.P. on 09/10/2018. The complainant fell ill on next day i.e. 10/10/2018, with the complaint of fever, chest and abdominal pain. He consulted one Dr. Lokesh Kumar Gupta, Pathshala Road, Baghpat, U.P. (not a party), who suggested some medical tests.
3. On 14/10/2018, the Complainant visited Prachi Diagnostic Centre, Main Pathshala Road, Khekra, Baghpat, U.P. for blood investigations and Vimal Ultrasound Centre (OP-2 herein), for ultrasound. Admittedly, OP-1 is the propitiator of OP-2. OP-1 conducted ultrasound examination of the abdomen of the Complainant.  It is the case of the Complainant that OP-1 diagnosed the problem of renal calculi and further advised him to drink 2-3 bottles of beer daily to wash out the stones as visible in ultrasound report but the condition of the complainant worsened.
4. As, there was no relief from the treatment given by Dr. Lokesh Gupta, the complainant visited Lord Homeoclinic, Shanu Market, Khekra, Bhagpat (not a party), where he was treated by Dr. Ravinder Tyagi (not a party)  but again, there was no relief to him. 
5. On 15/10/2018, the Complainant was admitted to Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital (not a party) as the condition of the Complainant did not improve. he was subsequently shifted to M/s Malik Hospital, Gohana Road, Panipat-132103 (not a party), where the problem of renal calculi was ruled out. The health of complainant started to improve upon proper treatment based on the tests and ultrasound report, which he had undergone on different centres. It is worth noting that the Complainant has undergone several ultrasound tests after Dr Nikunj conducted ultrasound on him, but none of the subsequent test reports suggested any renal calculi. The details of the tests are as under:

1. Madhumita Diagnostic Centre, Panipat, on 17.10.2018.
2. Malik Hospital and Diagnostic Centre, Panipat , on 19.10.2018.
3. Bansal Diagnostic & Imaging Centre, Panipat, on 25.10.2018.

6. The complainant has alleged that due to wrong report and opinion given by OP-1, the complainant suffered for more than 1 month as the line of treatment was based on the report given by OP-1. It has been further alleged that the complainant lost his job due to wrong report given by OP-1, which resulted is wrong treatment as he was unable to attend his duties for more than 30 days. Legal notice dated 11/02/2019 and 03/07/2019 were served upon OPs, which was neither replied nor complied by opposite party despite service. Feeling aggrieved by the negligence of OPs, hence, the present complaint with the prayer for directions to opposite party to:

1. pay Rs.65,000/- (Rs. Sixty Five Thousand Only) incurred in lieu of several medical tests, medicines, travel expenses, loss of job suffered due to wrong report given by opposite parties,
2. pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lacs Only) on account of mental agony & harassment,
3. pay litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)  and,
4. other relief which this commission deemed fit is proper facts & circumstances of the case.

7. Notice of present complaint was issued to the OPs. Thereafter, common reply to the complaint was filed by both OPs. In their reply, OPs have taken several pleas in their defence including maintainability of the complaint, locus of Complainant to file the present complaint, absence of cause of action in favour of the complainant, concealment & suppression of material facts and jurisdiction of this the commission.
8. On the aspect of the jurisdiction, the fact that the Complainant resides within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission as well as the fact that he works for gain within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The Clerks identity card issued in favour of the Complainant by the Delhi High Court records the office address of the Complainant situated within the complex of Tis Hazari Court Complex. This identity card is sufficient to establish that the Complainant works for gain within territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
9. On the merits of the case, OPs in their reply have admitted that the ultrasound of whole abdomen (Male) was done by OP-1 and as per the report OP-1 had given the impression as “B/L Renal Calculi”. However it has been denied that Complainant was advised by OP-1 to consume beer.  It has also been denied that the health of the complainant started to improve after second ultrasound was done. It has been specifically denied that complainant suffered mental loss due to the wrong opinion given by OP-1.
10. It was submitted that the OP-1 had given proper and suitable impression/ opinion whatever was reflected in the ultrasound report of the complainant. The crux of the matter is that whether the ultrasound report by the Op-1 is correct or not. The OPs have admitted that the ultrasound report was indeed issued by OP-1 in which the OP-1 has given the opinion of presence of “B/L Renal Calculi”. This report was prepared on 14.10.2018. However in the ultrasound reports dated 17.10.2018, 19.10.2018 and 25.10.2018 by different Radiologists at different imaging centres, no renal calculi was seen. It is not argued by the OPs that the renal calculi were expelled between in next few days after the ultrasound which was conducted on 14.10.2018. Renal calculi of smaller size may get dissolved and pass with medication, but that usually takes 2-3 weeks. In the case in hand, the renal calculi cannot be expelled in just 2-3 days.
11. Even if it is assumed that the renal calculi was expelled in just 2-3 days since the ultrasound by OP-1, there cannot be a possibility of its dissolution, as it is medically impossible to dissolve the renal calculi in just 2-3 days without proper medication or other intervention. If the renal calculi are expelled in just 2-3 days, the urinary track, in all probability, would get injured. In none of the ultrasound reports dated 17.10.2018, 19.10.2018 and 25.10.2018, any indication of any injury to the urinary tract is seen.
12. All this clearly indicates that the ultrasound report dated 14.10.2018 was not correct and the finding of the OP-1 was flawed. At this stage, we would also like to record that the ultrasound report dated 14.10.2018 appears to be a fixed format with most of the findings already typed and printed. We noticed that in the report, there is manual entry of the name, age/ sex, date and referring doctor details, but the later part of the report including ultrasound impression findings, is printed. Only the measurement of kidneys, size of alleged renal calculi in both kidneys, size of spleen and final impression i.e. “B/L renal calculi” are hand written. This pre-printed format of the report also creates doubt about the correctness of the report prepared by the OP-1 doctor.
13. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ultrasound report prepared by OP-1 at OP-2 centre is not correct. This clearly amounts to deficiency of service, unfair trade practice as well as gross medical negligence on part of Dr Nikunj Kumar, OP-1 herein. Accordingly, while allowing the complaint, we pass following orders:
    1. OPs are jointly and severely directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to the Complainant on account of his medical expenses, compensation for medical negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice; and litigation expenses within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
    2. If the order is not complied within the stipulated time as directed above, the OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% PA on the above amount after the expiry of the said three weeks period.
14. With above directions, the complaint is disposed of. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on confonet. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member