Haryana

Ambala

CC/69/2013

CHAMPA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. P.K SANGHA - Opp.Party(s)

P.K. ARYA

24 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No.      : 69 of 2013.

Date of Institution         : 01.04.2013.

Date of Decision            : 24.08.2017

 

Champa Devi widow of Sh.Nageshwar Paswan resident of H.No.241 village Bheemakol  PO Bhima District Arariya  Bihar.                  

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.       Dr. P.K.Sangha  Raju Raju Clinic Panjokhara Sahib District Ambala Haryana.

2.       Dr.S.R.Arora Sant Hospital, 14 Civil Line Near Arya Chowk, Ambala City.

3.       Dr.Vishal Mehra, Mehra Hospital, 596 A Inder Nagar, Ambala City.

4.       Director Principal Govt. Medical College & Hospital Sector 32 Chandigarh 160047. 

                                                                   ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                    MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh. P.K.Arya, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K.Kashyap counsel for OP No.1.

                   OP Nos.2 & 4 have been given up.

                   OP No.3 exparte.  

 

ORDER

                   The facts of the present complaint are that husband of the complainant had visited Op No.1 on 08.04.2011 for medical checkup and after diagnosing him the Op No.1 had administered Intra Venous IV Glucose Solution mixed with some colorful injections alongwith some other IV and intra-muscular IM injections but thereafter his overall general health condition got deteriorated and he developed tremors dizziness and weakness with unusual symptoms in his body. Above said problems were brought to the notice of Op No.1 but instead of diagnosing the patient he sent back him to home for taking rest. On the same day in the late evening the condition of the husband of the complainant got worst due to out bulging of stomach besides breathlessness and restlessness but again the Op No.1 had administered more injections and IV fluid but the condition of the patient got worsened therefore on the next days the OP No.1 fitted a rubber tube into the urethral opening of the patient and also inserted some solutions like injections into his anus and different type of medicines were injected into the body of patient. The OP No.1 has also not provided any detail chart of treatment of the husband of the complainant and when the condition of the patient went beyond control then the OP No.1 referred the patient to OP No.2 with a referral slip but the patient was taken to Op No.3 who further referred him to the Op No.4 but despite best efforts of doctors posted there the life of the husband of the complainant could not be saved and he last breathed at about 5.30 A.M. on 11.04.2011. The Op Nos.1 & 2 are guilty of deficient service and running exploitative criminal commercial nexus instead of medical scientific services as due to this the complainant has lost her companion. OP Nos. 1 & 2 were contacted on telephone many a times and the OPs were also served with notice but to no avail. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C23.

2.                Upon notice Op No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing his written statement wherein it has been submitted that Shri Nageshwar had visited OP No.1 when he was having stomach pain and asked for some pain killer tablets. He was asked to get medically checked besides providing pain killers and thereafter he had never visited the husband of the complainant. The Op No.1 had never diagnosed the husband of the complainant and also not administered any intra venous Glucose Solution and it was momentary stay at the place of OP No.1. When Shri Nageshwar had not been diagnosed therefore question of non issuance of report does not arise at all and the pain killers were provided Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.

3.                OP Nos. 2 & 4 were given up vide order dated 10.04.2013 and the OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.07.2015.

4.                The counsel for the opposite party No.1 has firstly argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint being barred by the pecuniary jurisdiction because the relief claimed by the complainant in a prayer clause of the complaint as well as in the affidavit Annexure CX exceeds Rs.20 lacs. We have gone through the prayer clause of the complaint wherein the complainant has prayed for compensation for causing death of the complainant husband of Rs.20 lacs cost of causing financial loss and damage to the complainant compensation on account of mental agony harassment ruining the future of the complainant and expenses incurred on legal recourse an exemplary cost fine. As per affidavit Annexure CX filed by the complainant in para No.9 the complainant has categorically mentioned that the OP is dishonest person and submitted the falsehood hence prayed compensation with interest 18  from the date of the death of the husband of the deponent be awarded  Section 11 1 of the Consumer Protection Act is as under

11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum I Subject to the other provisions of this Act the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation if any claimed  does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.

 

                   If we read the prayer clause as well as the affidavit furnished by the complainant it clears that the claim of the compliannt exceeds Rs.20 lakh
 which shows that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint keeping in view the above mentioned Section. Accordingly   we dismiss the present complaint without going into the merit of the case. However the complainant is at liberty to approach at appropriate Court forum Honble State Commission if he so advised and in that eventuality the period of litigation before this Forum shall not be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate court forum.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case titled  Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  1995 3 SCC page 583. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED ON 24.08.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                            PRESIDENT       

         

 

 

            (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                      MEMBER