Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 186

                                                                   Instituted on     : 30.04.2018

                                                                   Decided on       : 06.03.2024

Suresh Kumar age 24 Years, son of Sh. Rohtash R/o Village Kiloi Dopana, Rabyan-Pana, Tehsil & District Rohtak.

                                                          ……………..Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Dr. Parveen Garg, Proprietor Nav Jeewan Hospital, in front of Kailash Ashram, Model Town, Rohtak.

2. National Insurance Company Ltd. 3, Middleton Street, Post Box No. 9229, Kolkata-700-071 Service to be effected through its Regional Manager, Rohtak.

                                                                                                                                                                             ...........……Respondent/opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.Devender Verma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.H.C.Sikri, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

                   Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj Advocate for opposite party No.2                                       

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the complainant suffered pain in his right shoulder and accordingly he went to the opposite party for treatment. On 05.10.2013, the complainant was admitted there and  respondent started the treatment. Respondent referred the complainant to Dr. Shalender Aggarwal, Balaji MRI and CT Scan Pvt. Ltd., HUDA. Complex, Rohtak. The MRI of right shoulder joint of the complainant was done by Dr. Shalender Aggarwal who issued the report. The report was normal but the respondent told the complainant that some operation is to be performed on the body of complainant,  for which the respondent took an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant and his brothers namely Naresh and Rajesh. The complainant remained admitted in the hospital of respondent and was discharged on 11.10.2013.  When the respondent checked the complainant medically he told that in his lifetime this is first case of this type and the doctors would be called from some other hospital. The respondent took the complainant in a room in his hospital where some injection was given to complainant and immediately after that the complainant became semi-conscious. When the complainant became conscious, the respondent told that the operation has been performed whereas no operation was ever performed. An amount of Rs.5000/- was also taken by the respondent as misc. expenses, Rs.10,000/- as room expenses and an amount of about Rs.20,000/- was spent on Medicines etc. but there is no improvement in the health of complainant and no doctor from any other hospital was ever called by the respondent for the treatment of complainant. As the proper treatment has not been given to the complainant, the complainant is unable to do any work. Earlier he was a driver of three-wheeler being a poor person. In this way, the life of complainant has been spoiled due to the aforesaid acts of the respondent. The act of opposite party is unjust and there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent. The complainant requested the respondent compensate him but the respondent has finally on 18.02.2015 refused to pay any heed to the request of complainant. Complainant has been re-operated and diagnosed and all the Tests i.e. MRI, C.T. Scan, attendant, special diet, transportation etc. other medical formalities has been done again and the complainant has remained admitted in Noble Heart & Super Specialty Hospital, Rohtak and has incurred expenses near about 1,00,000/- lac on all above said formalities. The first complaint has withdrawn on 16.10.2017 with the permission of the Court to file a fresh complaint. That this is Second complaint of the complainant. It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and opposite party may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- to the complainant and litigation expenses along with interest thereon @ 18% per annum from 05.10.2013 till its realization to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that admittedly the complainant had earlier filed complaint no.99 on 23.2.2015 which was got dismissed as withdrawn alleging some technical defect in the complaint and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.10.2017 with a liberty to file fresh one. But the present complaint is also filed on the same grounds. On merits it is submitted that in fact, the patient was complaining of pain on dated 05/10/2013, i.e. pain in the right shoulder and scapular region for the last two to three years. He was diagnosed clinically as Impingement Syndrome, on dated 8.10.2013 MRI was got done and sub-coracoid bursitis was confirmed. On dated 09/10/2013, injection depomedrol for pain relief was given for treatment but patient did not get relieved and he again presented on 12/10/2013, then he was explained regarding diagnostic arthroscopy of shoulder with a package of Rs.35000/- and he was admitted in the Hospital on dated 15/10/2013, and he was operated on 16/10/2013, under General Anaesthesia and the patient was remained unconscious during surgery. Arthroscopy was done under explained prognosis and written consent was obtained from his real brother, Naresh. At the time of discharge, the patient was better and no post-operative surgical complication was there. Generally this type of surgery (Arthroscopy Surgery) does not effect the pre-operative condition of patient and it is pertinent to mention here that diagnostic arthroscopy is not a final treatment. The patient did not follow in the O.P.D after 29/10/2013. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. The complainant is not entitled to any amount of compensation from the opposite party. It is therefore prayed the complaint being false, frivolous and bogus one may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs. However it is submitted that the answering respondent is duly insured with National Insurance Company Ltd, Divisional Office IInd, Narain Shopping Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak vide policy no. 421600/46/12/8700000173, from 29.11.2012 to 28.11.2013, professional indemnity and if the Hon'ble Commission comes to otherwise conclusion then the insurer aforementioned will indemnify on behalf of the respondent.

3.                Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant never contacted or visited at the office of the O.P No.1 situated at Rohtak. It is pertinent that there is no relation between the complainant and the answering respondent, moreover no claim is lodged in the company of the answering respondent in this regard, therefore the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4.                Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.P22 and closed his evidence on dated 27.03.2019. Witness Sh. Ravi Ahlawat Record-Keeper of Noble heart Hospital also placed on record documents Ex.C23 to Ex.C29. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex. R2 and closed his evidence on dated 03.03.2021.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                In the present complaint, as per complainant he took treatment from Navjeevan Hospital regarding her shoulder injuries. He was admitted in the hospital on dated 05.10.2013 and was discharged on 11.10.2023. The hospital had charged an amount of Rs.35000/- regarding the operation treatment and medicine etc. During this period on dated 08.10.2013 MRI of the complainant was done in Balaji MRI & C.T.Scan Pvt. Ltd. Rohtak by Dr. Shelender Aggarwal. As per complainant no such complication, was found in the MRI report and the doctor i.e. respondent no.1 has wrongly treated the complainant. He further submitted that he is unable to do any work after the operation and prior to this operation he was a three wheeler driver and after the operation, he was unable to do his daily routine work or his driving job. He further submitted that he took treatment from the Noble Heart and Super specialty hospital  Delhi ByePass regarding the injuries and spent an amount of Rs.100000/-on tests, MRI CT Scan and attendant and transportation charges etc. 

7.                We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per perusal of MRI report placed on record as Ex.C3, the conclusion para is as under:- :IMPRESSION:-> “MR imaging reveals minimal fluid in subcoaracoid bursa and surrounding biceps tendon”.   Meaning thereby some complications were found in the shoulder of the complainant and he was treated by the treating doctor i.e. respondent no.1. After perusal of the documents placed on record by the complainant we came into the conclusion that complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion, medical opinion of medical board or any other doctor to prove the fact that respondent no.1 was negligent in performing his duties or he has wrongly treated the complainant regarding the related injuries. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to  costs.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

06.03.2024

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member