Lovedeep Singh complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that opposite parties be directed to refund Rs.2,50,000/- spent on his treatment which was being charged in a hasty manner for the purpose of services rendered by them. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation from opposite party no.5 namely Chauhan Pharmacy and also compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account mental agony, harassment and emotional distress suffered by him due to the negligent and unprofessional conduct and working of the officials of the opposite party alongwith litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.           The case of the complainant in brief is that on 9.9.2015 he met with a road accident near village Sarna and was admitted to Chauhan Hospital, Pathankot. At the time of admission, he was admitted with head injury, Mandible/Lower Law Fracture, which was later on operated alongwith one more Fracture of left Humorous, which was also alleged operated and fixed by the doctors on the same day. His X-ray was conducted in the same hospital at about 13:52 and it was clearly shown in the X-ray that his left Humorous was broken/fractured and the same was treated and operated by the team of doctors namely Dr.Nitin, Dr.Mandeep, Dr.Ritesh under the guidance and experience of Dr.Daljit Singh Chauhan. He was kept on ventilation system for a continuous period of fifteen days despite of the fact that the victim was in his complete senses after a period of seven days and kept on walking on his feet.  Even after continuous request of the attendants of the patient and of patient himself the doctors kept the patient under Ventilator support system in order to raise more bills by adopting unfair trade practices. He has next pleaded that after the operation he still complained the doctors about the severe pain and he is feeling in his left Humorous due to fracture but the doctors remain adamant to their behaviour and did not want to listen carefully his complaint.  He was discharged from hospital on 1.10.2015 and at that time he again told the doctor about severe pain in his left arm/Humorous but they again round-up the matter by simply stating it will go with time and keep on stressing to have pain killers. Actually the severe pain in his left arm was again brought to the notice of the doctor on 6.10.2015 and on 10.10.2015 during his routine checkup visit to the hospital, but instead of paying any attention to his complaint they removed the iron rods which was placed for the purpose of joining broken left Humorous but they in a very negligent manner and simply giving medicine for pain and advised rest. The hospital authorities had included in unfair trade practices to gain monetary gains from him.  He has next pleaded that after continuous severe pain in the left Humorous, he was left with no other option but to consult with some other doctor. In that concern he on 26.10.2015 visited the Civil Hospital Gurdaspur and got him checked by some competent doctor there. After X-ray of Gurdaspur it was to utter show and surprise that his left Humorous was still broken. Again 28.10.2015, he had to under gone a separate surgery from Dr.Deepak Sahotra from Civil Hospital Gurdaspur and in that Surgery the left humorous was actually operated and plats were installs and bone was fixed to its original place. Thus, the opposite party is liable to refund the entire amount received from his parents. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1,2 and 3 have appeared and filed their separate written reply wherein same version have been written submitting therein that the opposite parties no.1 to 3 are well qualified, reputed and respected doctors. The patient Lovedeep Singh was admitted in the hospital with an alleged history of road traffic accident on 9.9.2015 at about 12.30 PM in a very critical condition. The patient had poly trauma (head injury, left humorous fracture) with a history of nasal and oral bleed. Because of flow GCS the patient was immediately intubated and put on ventilatory support to save the patient from aspiration. The patient was hemodynamically and neurologically unstable for 2 weeks. There was waxing and waning of hemodynamic and neurological status, hence it was mandatory to put him on a ventilator to prevent sudden death. The patient was treated for his neurological condition conservatively since he was not fit for surgery. The patient also had serious injuries to facial bones, the patient had heavy bleeding from nasal and oral cavity, already secured by inserting an end tracheal tube. Thereafter, all necessary surgeries and supportive measures were taken by all senior consultants with the team of experienced doctors to save the patient from life threatening condition. The opposite party no.3, plastic surgeon treated for facial fractures and the patient underwent surgery for facial fracture and facial skin on 9.9.2015 since the patient was bleeding profusely from oral and nasal cavity the patient was immediately taken for the surgery. Tracheostomy was done to prevent any aspiration of blood and for better ventilation. The patient was initially on life support system and his general condition was very poor. The patient was almost on the death bed, swinging on verge of death and life. It is the teamwork of the doctors and proper infrastructures, that saved the patient’s life somehow. The patient’s condition was very poor for such major surgery, hence he was not fit enough to undergo lengthy orthopaedic surgical procedure of ORIF. Patient party was told by the opposite party no.2 that he will require final fixation in the form of plating when his condition improves. Further mild pain in the post-operative period is a normal phenomenon. During OPD follow-up one of the fixator pin was infected and loose, so the fixator was removed by the opposite party no.2. Patient party was told by the opposite party no.2 that he will require final fixation in the form of plating when his condition improves hence slab was applied. The patient was also told by the opposite party no.1 that definitive treatment shall be given afterwards when he will be totally fit. Everything the opposite party no.1 has done  diligently, prudently, with utmost due care and caution in treating the said patient. There was no negligence at least from their side.   All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.       

4.         Opposite parties no.4 and 5 has appeared and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, frivolous, vexatious and scurrilous which is unsustainable in the eyes of law and has been filed without any reason; no specific, scientific and justified allegations in regard to negligence or deficiency in providing services has been made by the complainant against opposite parties no.4 and 5; complainant has filed this complaint with false allegations of negligence to the Hon’ble Forum by claiming exorbitant amounts without any basis; no cause of action arose against the opposite parties no.4 and 5 in this case, the present complaint is totally false, fabricated, wrong and baseless and opposite parties no.4 and 5 is well qualified reputed and respected doctor. On merits, it was submitted that the patient Lovedeep Singh was admitted in the opposite party hospital with an alleged history of road traffic accident on 9.9.2015 at about 12.30 PM is a very critical condition. The patient had poly trauma (hear injury, left humerus fracture) with a history of nasal and oral bleed. Because of low GCS the patient was immediately intubated and was put on ventilatory support to save the patient from aspiration. Because of the serious injuries to facial bones, the patient had heavy bleeding from nasal and oral cavity, already secured by inserting an end tracheal tube. Thereafter, all necessary surgeries and supportive measures were taken by all senior consultants with the team of experienced doctors to save the patient from life threatening condition. Opposite party no.3, plastic surgeon treated for facial fractures and the patient underwent surgery for facial fracture and facial skin on 9.9.2015 since the patient was bleeding profusely from the oral and nasal cavity the patient was immediately taken for a surgery. Tracheotomy was done to prevent by aspiration of blood and for better ventilation. It has further submitted that Dr.Mandeep, temporary fixation of fractures was done. External fixator was put for the fractured humorous, when the patient’s condition improved a bit it was explained to the patient party that it is a temporary form of fixation just to stabilize the fracture fragments as  definitive treatment shall be done later on since it is a prolonged surgery. The patient’s condition was very poor for such a major surgery, hence he was not fit enough to undergo the lengthy surgical procedure of ORIF. Patient party was told that he will require final fixation in the form of plating when his condition improves. Further mild pain the post-operative period is a normal phenomenon. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.

5.          Opposite party no.6 appeared through its counsel and file its written statement taking the preliminary objections that the opposite parties no.1,4 and 5 was not insured with the company and therefore, the company is not liable to pay any compensation. The present complaint against the Insurance Company is not maintainable and insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant as under the terms and conditions of the “Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy”, the alleged insured opposite parties no.1, 4 and 5 did not give written intimation to the company regarding the present claim filed by the complainant against the opposite parties no.1,4 and 5, nor other required document i.e. Medical treatment record of the complainant, Admission and Discharge Certificate of the complainant etc. Supplied by the opposite parties no.1, 4 and 5 to the Insurance Company. Hence in absence of the required documents, the insurance company is not in a position to investigate the matter and to give the proper and complete reply of the complaint. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. On merits, all averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.        Opposite party no.7 appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement by taking the preliminary objections that the opposite parties are summoned in the present complaint without following the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in dealing the medical negligence cases as such the complaint liable to be dismissed on this ground alone;  the Chauhan Medicity Hospital, Kotli is not insured with the opposite party as such the opposite party no.7 has no liability to pay claim; the complainant is not disclosing any negligence on the part of any doctor in the complaint as such the complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is not supported by any expert opinion, as such without any expert opinion, the doctors cannot be summoned or held liable;  the complaint has not furnish any medical record alongwith notice in this case as such the opposite party has no notice of any treatment as such the contents of the case is not admissible against the opposite party. If the later stage of the case, any documents furnish and in that event the opposite party reserve his right to amend the reply and the insured Dr.Ritesh  but the complainant has not pointed out any role of the Dr.Rirtesh as such the opposite party has no liability to pay any claim. On merits all averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal for the complaint.

7.      Ccomplainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Dr.Deepak Sahotra Orthopedic Surgeon Ex.C-128, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C137 including Ex.C-98A and closed the evidence.

8.       Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 5 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.Ritesh Kumar Jaiswal Ex.OP-1 to 5/1 and closed the evidence.

9.      Counsel for the opposite party no.6 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Karam Singh Divisional Manager Ex.OP-6/1 alongwith copy of policy schedule Ex.OP-6/2 and closed the evidence.

10.    Sh.Sh.Pardeep Singh Manager of opposite party no.7 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-7/1 and closed the evidence..      

11.      We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some documents vital for the present adjudication in spite of the ample opportunity available for the purpose. We observe that the complainant side has not produced (on records) any cogent evidence or even otherwise an acceptable documentary evidence of legal value so as to prove his allegations (Affidavit Ex.C1) as put forth in the present complaint. Somehow, he has based his allegations on layman’s interpretation(s) of the OP’s medical treatment/medicine prescriptions (Ex.C2 to Ex.C126) that are deviated/imbalanced to support the complainant’s own version; even otherwise he has failed to prove any statutory ‘deficiency in service’ on the OP’s part also with assistance of second orthopedic surgery and medical treatment at the Govt. Hospital, Gurdaspur; by Dr Lahota who did not find/mention any failings in the medical-treatment as meted out at the OP Hospital, at the hands of the OP Doctors. It has been unfortunate that the complainant had received grave injuries in the RTA (Road Traffic Accident) that had been left to be operated once the complainant recovered somewhat to bear the pangs of surgery. Moreover, it took ‘two’ long years to heal the injuries and naturally the complainant has been fed up with the misery of pain and incurring expenses that he changed to Govt. Hospital and filed the present complaint but he somehow, could not establish any statutory deficiency in the OP’s treatment so as to have a favorable award, under the adjudicating Act.      

12.     We further find and are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his allegations/charges against the OP Doctors/Hospital for any ulterior motives etc but here the OP Doctors have proved to have provided the best treatment as available with them. All the exhibited evidentiary documents do indicate ‘grave’ injury to the body of the complainant that had to be operated subsequently to heal it fully.

13.     Moreover, It has always been the complainant’s own discretion to have ‘second surgery’ and treatment of his choice and he has exercised it well. Moreover, it has not been anyway proved on records that the opinion/ treatment as put forth by the opposite parties (here) has been medically ‘wrong and incorrect’. These different opinions are not ‘unwarranted’ so long as these do not drift away from the known and acceptable medical science. Lastly, we find the deposition(s) and document(s) as submitted by the opposite party doctors to be quite true, genuine & bonafide and thus accept these as admissible on records. We are also convinced with the OP’s plea that going by the medical precautionary custom and practice the present medical treatment was provided to the complainant.

14.     Finally, in the light of the all above, we do not see any actionable statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal, with no orders as to its costs.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                           (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                    President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 13,2017.                                                     Member                

*MK*