Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 403.
Instituted on : 03.08.2016.
Decided on : 11.09.2019.
Geeta w/o Sh. Satpal R/o H.No.675/21, Kailash Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Dr. S.K.Moda, Moda Nursing Home, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak-124001.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd., Narain Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Virender Singh Advocate for the complainant.
Smt. Savita Saini & Sh.L.P.Jain, Advocates for opposite party
No.1.
Sh.A.S.Malik, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant approached the respondent on dated 04.05.2016 to get treatment of her right leg as she had fell down and the finger of right foot next to toe was paining. That opposite party took the X-ray on 04.05.2016 and applied plaster upon the foot. That despite the medicines and regular treatment given by the respondent w.e.f. 04.05.2016 to 07.06.2016, she did not get any relief and pain was unbearable. That respondent charged Rs.300/- per visit , Rs.300/- per X-ray from the complainant and the complainant has also spent Rs.5000/- on medicines. That as the complainant did not get any relief, so she contacted the other doctor at Sanjivani Hospital and she was told that due to careless and negligent treatment, the foot has to be operated immediately to get relief and same was operated immediately and she had to spent extra money due to the negligence of opposite party. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.85000/- with other charges like litigation expenses and harassment etc. as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is wrong that complainant approached the opposite party to get treatment of her right leg as she fell down and finger of right foot next to toe was paining as alleged. That complainant on 4.5.2016 had complained of pain at the proximal part of foot. At that site no obvious bony injury was seen except a crack at the base of IIIrd Matatarsal right foot and in view of soft tissue injury plaster was given. That complainant did not complaint of any pain at any time or on any visit regarding the dislocation of MTP Joint of 2nd toe as the same was old one. That the respondent has only charged Rs.3800/- on account of consultation fee for three visits, Rs.2000/- as plaster fee and Rs.900/- for three X-rays and she might have spent Rs.1500/- approx in all on medicines prescribed by the answering opposite party. It is denied that complainant could not get relief from the treatment provided by the respondent and she had approached Sanjivani Hospital. All the other contents of the complaint are stated to be wrong and denied. That there is neither any negligence nor deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. It is prayed that in case, still the ld. Forum grant any compensation in that event the National Insurance Company respondent No.2 is liable to pay the said amount.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the specific reply has already been given by OP No.1 and same may kindly be read as integral part of this reply. That complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the answering opposite parties.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and the evidence of complainant was closed by order dated 08.08.2018 of this Forum. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1/1 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/1 and has closed his evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case, the complainant received injuries on dated 04.05.2016 and he approached the respondent no.1 Dr. S.K.Moda for her treatment. OPD card of respondent no.1 is Ex.C1. As per this OPD card, the complainant complained pain at the proximal part of foot. X-Ray was conducted on dated 04.05.2016 and the respondent no.1 gave treatment to the complainant. Plaster was applied at the proximal part of the foot. The complainant again approached to the respondent no.1 on 07.05.2016 and again X-Ray was conducted. Thereafter, one another X-ray was taken on 15.05.2016. The complainant also complained to the respondent no.1 that she suffered from acute pain. Finally, the 4th x-ray was taken on 07.06.2016 when the complainant again approached to the respondent no.1 that she has got no relief in the pain. Thereafter, the complainant approached to another hospital i.e Sanjivni Hospital on dated 08.06.2016 regarding the treatment. The OP card of the Sanjivani Hopsital is Ex.C2 and Ex.C12.
8. We have perused all the relevant documents placed on record by both the parties. We have perused the X-ray conducted by the respondent no.1 which is Ex.C13 to Ex.C16 and another X-ray conducted in Sanjivani Hospital i.e. Ex.C17 to Ex.C20. As per the written statement and affidavit filed by the respondent no.1, they only treated the complainant regarding a crack at the base of 3rd Metatarsal right foot. After seeing the x-rays the respondent no.1 came to the conclusion that there was a soft tissue injury. A plaster was applied by the respondent no.1. The plaster was applied at the proximal part of the foot. We have perused Ex.C1, in which the injury in 3rd Metatarsal right foot has been mentioned by Dr. S.K.Moda. We have also seen Ex.C17 in which, injury regarding MTP joint of second toe of right foot has been mentioned and it has been also mentioned by treating doctor that this injury is one month old. Meaning thereby, the injury in the second MTP joint was also caused on the same day when the complainant received injuries in her 3rd Matatarsal right foot. These two bones are simultaneous. X-ray report Ex.C13 & Ex.C16 are placed on record but neither the respondent no.1 nor the Sanjivani Hospital has attached any radiologist report. We, ourselves have observed these reports and the bare perusal of these X-ray reports shows that a normal human being can understand that there is a bone injury in the MTP 2 joint of second toe of the right foot of the complainant which was also received on the same day. Meaning thereby the treating doctor could not observe the injuries minutely and he, in a casual manner observed the x-ray reports. Moreover, the complainant was repeatedly complaining regarding the pain in her foot. She complaint regarding pain on three dates i.e. 07.05.2016, on 15.05.2016 and on 07.06.2016 that she has not got any relief in her pain but the doctor did not take the matter seriously. As per Document Ex.C7, a surgery was required but the same was not done by Dr. S.K.Moda and merely a plaster was applied. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and the opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss caused to her due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. As per copy of bills placed on record as Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and Ex.C8 to Ex.C11, complainant has spent an amount of Rs.9662/- on her treatment.
9. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on account of bills and medicines etc. alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e..03.08.2016 till its realization and also to pay Rs.25000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. As per the policy placed on record as Ex.R1, respondent no.1 is insured with the respondent no.2. Hence, opposite party no.2 being the insurer of opposite party no.1 will indemnify opposite party no.1 in accordance with contract of insurance policy.
10. 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:
11.09.2019.
…………………………………….
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
