BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 13 of 2014.
Date of Institution : 22.1.2014
Date of Decision : 25.1.2017.
Sant Lal son of Shri Moman Ram, resident of village Rupana, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dr. R.K. Jain, MBBS, D. Ortho, MS. Ortho (PGI Rohtak), Jain Orthopedic Hospital, Mal Godown Road, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Sirsa Branch Manager, Insurer of Jain Orthopedic Hospital, Mal Godown Road, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa vide cover Note No.884888 w.e.f. 07.09.2011 to 06.09.2012.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA………………. ……PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Dharminder Chauhan, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that on 20.7.2012, he visited the hospital of op doctor with the complaint of pain in his right knee joint. The op no.1 straightway prescribed administration of two injections in his right knee. The op doctor gave two injections in the right knee of complainant without proper check up and even without diagnosing the actual cause of pain. The op doctor hardly took one minute in prescribing the injections to him and further advised him to have another injection after three days. The op doctor charged Rs.3800/- from the complainant on 29.7.2012. After three days, the complainant again visited the hospital of op doctor and he gave another injection in his right knee and charged Rs.900/- from him. However, after three injections, the pain remained in his knee and condition started deteriorating. The right knee of complainant swelled and pain increased and after few days, the same started developing pus where the op doctor had given injections. The pain was unbearable. Then the complainant visited General Hospital, Sirsa and there doctor advised for x-ray and ultra sonography which were got conducted from Ridhi Sidhi Diagnostic Centre, Sirsa. The doctor of G.H. Sirsa on examining the x-ray and ultrasound reports stated that the knee has developed pus due to injections and prescribed medicines to him. He is still getting treatment for the same and has so far insurred a sum of Rs.25,000/- on his treatment. In this manner, it is quite clear that the op doctor checked up and gave injections in the knee of complainant in a very casual manner due to which he has suffered pain, mental tension and harassment etc. So, the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.four lacs besides refund of Rs.25,000/- from the op doctor. The complainant approached the op no.1 and requested him to make good the loss suffered by him but he did not pay any heed to the same. Ultimately, complainant got served legal notice upon op no.1 on 16.10.2013 but of no use. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections regarding limitation, maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; estoppal and suppression of material facts etc. It has been submitted that the complainant visited the hospital of op on 20.7.2012 on outdoor basis. The OPD slip is always handed over to patient with the prescribed medicines. The patient might have been advised the administration of injections after proper examination and after making the proper clinical diagnosis. It is not compulsory in every case to go for unnecessary costly investigations once the diagnosis becomes clearly clinically. Making the diagnosis and prescribing treatment do not take much time once the history, symptoms and signs are clear. The complainant must have been advised for injections but the same have not been given and no money as claimed by complainant had been charged. If the injections had been administered and the money had been charged, the bills of the same must have been issued as per routine practice. The same have not been produced by the complainant alongwith the complaint. Moreover, the complainant never visited again the hospital of op after seeking the consultation. The op advised to the complainant for administration of injections in his right knee but he refused for the same so no injection was administered. The legal notice was properly replied by op on 19.10.2012 and after a long delay the complainant has filed this false complaint. It has also been submitted that if this Forum reaches to the conclusion that complainant is entitled to get any compensation then the insurance company is liable to pay the same as all the activities of hospital of op is insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sirsa. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. On being impleaded as op no.2, United India Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that the liability of the answering op to indemnify the insured is subject to certain terms and conditions as laid down in the insurance policy. All other contents of the complaint have been denied.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1/A, parchi Ex.C1/B and Ex.C1/C, medical bills Ex.C1/D, Ex.C1/E, outdoor ticket of one Vadho wife of Vijender Ex.C1/F, prescription slip dated 29.7.2012 Ex.C1/G, x-ray report Ex.C1/H, ultra sound report Ex.C1/I, index of documents Ex.C1/J, and copies of documents Ex.C1/K to Ex.C1/O. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A. OP no.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.RW2/A, copy of insurance cover note Ex.R1, copy of policy Ex.R2, reply to legal notice Ex.R3 and copy of postal receipt Ex.R4.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. There is categorical stand of the op doctor that he advised to the complainant for administration of injections in his right knee but complainant refused for the same, so no injection was administered. The OPD slip is always handed over to patient with the prescribed medicines. The complainant has alleged to have visited General Hospital, Sirsa for treatment after administration of injections by op doctor but complainant has not produced any document in this regard. The outdoor ticket produced by the complainant of General Hospital, Sirsa Ex.C1/F pertains to one Smt. Vadho wife of Vijender and not to the complainant. There is nothing on file to prove any negligence or wrong treatment by op doctor rather it is categorical stand of the op doctor that as complainant refused for injections, so no injection was given to the complainant on his right knee. The complainant has not annexed any further treatment record of any other hospital/ General Hospital in support of his case. As such the complainant has failed to prove his case. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 25.1.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
