Uttar Pradesh

Aligarh

CC/190/2022

SMT GYAN KUMARI ALIAS DIKSHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. R.K. SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

न्यायालय जिला उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग
अलीगढ
 
Complaint Case No. CC/190/2022
( Date of Filing : 12 Oct 2022 )
 
1. SMT GYAN KUMARI ALIAS DIKSHA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS D/O SRI BACCHUSINGH W/O SRI DARSHAN SINGH R/O KASMA GARDEN DIST EATH AT PORESENT R/O VILLAGE MAJHOLA PS GANGIRI ALIGARH
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. DR. R.K. SINGH
CHIEF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT PREM RAGHU HOSPITAL &RESEARCH CENTRE NEAR MG POLYTECHNIC AGRA ROAD HATHRAS
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 21 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Case No. 190/2022   

 

IN THE MATTER OF

Smt. Dan Kumari alias Diksha aged about 22 yeas D/o Sri Bacchu Singh W/o Darshan Singh R/o Kosma, Gudau Distt Etah, At present Village Majhola, P.S. Gangri Aligarh  

                                           V/s

 Dr. R.K. Singh Chief Medical Superintendent, Prem Raghu Hospital & Research Centre, Near M.G. Polytechnic, Agra Road, Hathras

CORAM

 Present:

  1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
  2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
  3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

  1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs:-
  1. The ops be directed to pay a sum of Rs.800000 for medical expenses borne by her.
  2. The Op be directed to pay sum Rs 1000000 for future expenses in treatment.
  3. The OP be directed to pay Rs 500000 compensation for harassment.
  4. The medical license of the Op be cancelled.
  5. OP be directed to pay Rs.10000 as complaint fee and Rs.22000 counsel  fee.
  1. Complainant has stated that she was living at her paternal home at village Kusma Jalesar District Etah where she felt pain in her stomach on 21.5.2022. Her father took her to Prem Raghu Hospital District Hathras where she underwent USG on the prescription of the OP. OP diagnosed her a cyst which needed prompt surgery at the cost Rs.50000. It was pointed out by the op that the surgery was not carried out the same day the cyst could be burst inside the stomach and the complainant might die. Complainant’s father arranged the money for surgery. Op performed the surgery without conducting any test and discharged the complainant with 10 days medical prescription. A stranger of the family filled the consent form for medical procedure. Complainant followed the prescription after the surgery but stomache still persisted. Complainant met with op again on 2.7.2022 and shared the problem but she was again falsely assured by the Op that it was only a matter of time but the pain in stomach could not subside till 8.7.2022. Her husband took her to Green City Hospital Greater Noida on 9.7.2022. Doctor examined the complainant and found a cyst in the stomach and intimated that the cyst was not removed in the aforementioned surgery. The doctor had only made four incisions on the stomach and stitched without removing the cyst. Doctor performed the medical procedure for extorting the money and the negligence of the doctor  could have resulted death. OP has the qualification only B.A.M.S. M.A.M.S., M.R.S.H   and running the hospital under the license of  somebody else.                            
  1. Ops has filed the reply after expiration of 45 days and is not admissible as per law.

                               

  1. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.
  2. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel. We have also perused the rulings referred to by the parties.
  3. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
  4. Complainant has stated that she was operated upon at Ops hospital situated at Hathras which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Aligarh. Complainant has filed her Aadhar card which contains the number 338549662134 wherein the complainant has  been shown as resident of  the village Kosama Gudau Etah which is also not within the  territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Aligarh. It is clear that Complainant is neither resident of the place within the territorial jurisdiction of District Commsion Aligarh nor cause of action for filing the complaint arose within  the territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Aligarh. Accordingly District Commission Aligarh lacks the jurisdiction to hear and decide the present case and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  5.  Complaint is hereby dismissed and no relief could be granted to the complainant.
  6. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
  7. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.