Haryana

Sonipat

CC/344/2014

RAJESH KUAMR S/O RAMDHARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. S.K. GHOSH BENGALI - Opp.Party(s)

L.S. KAUSHIK

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.344 of 2014

                             Instituted on:10.12.2014

                             Date of order:03.11.2015

 

Rajesh Kumar son of Ram Dhari, r/o village Silana, tehsil Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

Dr SK Ghosh Chandsi Hospital Thana Kalan road, Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat.

                                      ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. LS Kaushik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Rajesh Kumar Adv. for respondent.

         

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that the respondent published pamphlets that he has the experience for treatment of piles (Bavasir). On 17.7.2010 the complainant alongwith one Suresh met the respondent for getting treatment and after examination, the respondent told that the complainant was suffering form piles and he assured to give better treatment with guarantee.  The respondent told that an amount of Rs.30,000/- will be incurred on the treatment.  However, the respondent agreed to charge Rs.25000/- form the complainant and the complainant paid Rs.2900/- as advance to the respondent.  There were four massas on the private part of the complainant  and out of which, the respondent removed two and asked the complainant to visit the hospital daily.  On 27.7.2010, two massas were cut down. On 30.7.2010, the respondent told the complainant that he was not suffering from piles, rather he was suffering from fisher and the complainant will have to pay additional amount of Rs.15000/-.  The respondent got Rs.10000/- from the complainant, but the condition of the complainant was deteriorating day by day and on 5.9.2010 the respondent showed his inability to treat the complainant and asked the complainant to get his treatment from PGIMS Rohtak.  On 7.9.2010, the complainant went to PGIMS Rohtak where it was told that the complainant was not suffering from any ailment like fisher and he was given wrong treatment by the respondent.  The complainant due to wrong treatment given by the respondent has incurred Rs.65,755/- on his treatment and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant was never told that he was suffering form piles.  The respondent does not know the complainant. So, the question of giving complete treatment to the complainant does not arise at all.  In the reply, the respondent have denied the allegations of the complainant in toto and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent for his personal vested interest has wrongly treated the complainant for the disease, from which he was not suffering.  This wrongful act of the respondent has not only caused a huge financial loss, but has also caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

         On the other hand, the respondent has denied all the allegations of the complainant in toto.

         We have perused Ex.C1 (Pamphlet) of the respondent wherein the name and address of the respondent is mentioned and in this pamphlet, the respondent has shown his experience in the field of Piles for about 20 years.  In Ex.C2, the name of the hospital of the respondent is mentioned and this document fully corroborate the document Ex.C1 (Pamphlet).

         Further Ex.C21 shows that the complainant has sent written complaint to the Police Authorities, Director Health Services and Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Sonepat against the respondent and in this complaint, the complainant has specifically named Dr SK Ghosh, Bangali Chandsi Hospital, Thana Kalan road, Kharkhoda.  This application moved by the complainant also fully supports the allegations leveled by the complainant in his complaint against the respondent.  On the other hand, no doubt the respondent has denied all the allegations of the complainant in toto, but in our view, by doing so, the respondent cannot escape from his legal liability because this fact also cannot ignored that no man of common sense file the false complaint against any person particularly when there is no allegation from the side of respondent regarding any enmity in between the complainant and respondent for any cause.  So, in our view, the complainant has been able to prove his case against the respondent.

         Now coming to the amount of compensation, as to for what amount of compensation the complainant is entitled to?

         The complainant has claimed Rs.5 lacs as compensation from the respondent by way of present complaint. In our view, the above said amount is on a very higher side, excessive and exorbitant.  However, in our view, Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum would be an adequante compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondent. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousand) in lumpsum to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for unfair trade practice, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:03.11.2015.