Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/132

Harpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Saurabha - Opp.Party(s)

Mangat Arora

25 May 2016

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       132

Date of Institution :  10.09.2015

Date of Decision :    25.05.2016

Harpreet Singh aged about 25 years, s/o Tara Singh s/o Sher Singh r/o Aggarwal Street, Prem Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.         

                                                                                               .....Complainant

Versus

1. Dr Saurabh Kapoor, Kapoor Nursing Home, Jaipur Ear, Nose, Throat Hospital & Endoscopy Centre, Near Bus Stand, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

2. Kapoor Nursing Home, Jaipur Ear, Nose, Throat Hospital & Endoscopy Centre, Near Bus Stand, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Proprietor.

3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 42-C, 3^rd Floor, Mool Chand Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110024 through its Manager/MD.

                                                                                         ............OPs

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Avtar Krishan, Ld Counsel for OP-1 & 2.

    Sh Ashok Kumar Monga, Ld Counsel for OP-3

                     

   (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                Complainant has filed present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for treating the complainant negligently and carelessly and for seeking directions to OPs  to make payment of Rs 13,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency and negligence in providing medical services and for harassment and mental agony besides cost of litigation.

   2                                  Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 15.07.2015, while brushing teeth, tooth brush entered into the food pipe of complainant and father of complainant immediately took him to the hospital of Ops, who checked the complainant, got done his X-ray and declared that tooth brush has been dissolved due to internal heat of body of complainant and there is nothing to worry. Ops also prescribed some medicines including pain killer and some antibiotics and then, complainant started consuming said medicine as recommended by Ops. Thereafter, on 18.07.2015, complainant felt acute pain in his stomach, and his father immediately took him to Rajan Hospital and Heart Centre, Kotkapura, where after checking the complainant, Dr Rajan referred complainant to Delhi Heart Institute and Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda. Just thereafter, father of complainant took him to Delhi Heart and Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda, where after x-ray and some tests, doctors told that said brush is still in the stomach of complainant and it had gone deep in his stomach, removal of which was very necessary, failing which there was threat to the life of complainant and to save the complainant, doctors of Delhi Heart Institute and Multispecialty Hospital conducted emergency operation of complainant on same night of 18.07.2015. Complainant had to spend Rs3,00,000/-on his treatment alongwith his valuable time and danger to his life. All this happened due to negligence on the part of Ops, who told complainant that there is nothing to worry. Despite taking charges from complainant, Ops did not do proper checking of complainant. If Ops had checked him properly, complainant would not have to undergo pre and post operation pains. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and has caused harassment, mental agony and financial loss to complainant. Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- for negligence in medical services, harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                                 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.09.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

   4                  OP-1 & 2 filed reply through counsel wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, malafide and not sustainable in law as liability of doctor arises when injury results due to conduct of doctor, which has fallen below that of reasonable care and not when the patient has suffered any injury. There is no breach of duty by Ops. It is averred that when something is inhaled in wrong way, in that situation, coughing is a normal reaction of the body to clear the throat and windpipe, but in present case, if tooth brush is inhaled, the windpipe gets chocked and in chocking of windpipe, air can not move in and out of lungs and person can not talk, cry, breath or cough and blocked windpipe is a life threatening emergency. Heimlich manoeuvre is used for clearing the chocked part and in present case, judging the situation of complainant, OP-1 has done the needful and even the attendants were satisfied at that time. However, on merits, ld counsel for Ops has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that answering Ops never advertised that they take out swallowed objects. In present case, it was an emergency and complainant came to Ops as object swallowed was a tooth brush. Ops advised x-ray and it was explained that even if the tooth brush is not seen on x-ray, they should not be under impression that that brush is not there, since it may not be radio opaque and it could be that brush has travelled to stomach and same needs to be removed by a scopy or surgery for which patient was referred to a higher centre. After this, patient lost to follow up and never came back to OPs. It is further averred that answering OPs did every thing diligently and prudently with utmost care and caution in treating the patient/complainant and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. There is deceptive or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and complainant is not entitled to any compensation, rather complainant should be ordered to pay Rs10,000/-to OPs for filing false and vexatious complaint. Ld Counsel for Ops further averred that complaint is bad for non arrangement of parties as OP-1 is insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd through its professional indemnity policy vide Policy No.041200/46/14/35/00002614 effective from 23.07.2014 to 22.07.2015. Ld Counsel for OPs further submitted that answering OP is an experienced and reputed doctor and is highly respected among all sections of society. OP-1 have never indulged in any kind of nefarious activity and have been treating and curing his patients diligently and very prudently and he never leaves any stone unturned in treating his patients. OP-1 provided the best medical treatment to patient and during check up tooth brush was not traced in food pipe or wind pipe, but still OP-1 performed x-ray and advised medicine as to be given in such situations, since it was an emergency situation. He further submitted that answering OPs did their duty with utmost care and caution and there is no negligence on the part of Ops. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs.

   5                                                  OP-3 appeared in the Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking preliminary objections that present complaint is without any cause of action and complainant is not the consumer of OP-3. It is asserted that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has given a false and manipulated version with a view to illegally extract money from answering OP. Moreover, present complaint is vague and discloses no cause of action as complainant has no given any detail that how he reached to the alleged amount of Rs13,00,000/-. Complaint filed by complainant is bad on account of mis-joinder of necessary party and is therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. No intimation regarding alleged health problem was ever given to answering OP by complainant or OP-1 and 2 and thereby preventing the same to gather first hand information of alleged health problem of complaint. It is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. However, on merits, ld counsel for OP-3 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has given irrelevant and highly exaggerated and false version in this complaint. It is wrong that there is any fault on the part of respondent and treatment was given immediately by OP-1, which is standard treatment as per Food and Drugs Act and as per medical ethics and the same is as per the international standards and norms and internationally approved by World Health Organization guidelines. It is asserted that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

    6                                      Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. To prove his respective pleadings, ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-10 and then, closed the evidence.

   7                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr Saurabh Kapoor as Ex. OP-1-2/1 and  documents Ex OP 1-2/2 to 10  and then, closed the evidence. Ld counsel for OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh, Divisional Manager as Ex OP-3/1 and document Ex OP-3/2 and then closed the same on behalf of OP-3.

   8                                             We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite parties.

   9                                            Ld Counsel for complainant contended that in the morning of 15.07.2015, while brushing teeth, tooth brush entered into the food pipe of complainant and his father immediately took him to the hospital of Ops, who after checking the complainant, got done his X-ray and declared that tooth brush has been dissolved due to internal heat of body of complainant and there is nothing to worry. Ops also prescribed some medicines including pain killer and some antibiotics, which complainant started consuming as recommended by Ops. It is further contended that thereafter, on 18.07.2015, complainant felt acute pain in his stomach, and his father immediately took him to Rajan Hospital and Heart Centre, Kotkapura, where after checking, Dr Rajan referred complainant to Delhi Heart Institute and Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda and just thereafter, father of complainant took him to the referred hospital at Bathinda, where after x-ray and some tests, doctors told that said brush is still in the stomach of complainant and it had gone deep in his stomach, removal of which was very necessary, failing which there was threat to the life of complainant and in order to save the life of complainant, doctors of Delhi Heart Institute and Multispecialty conducted emergency operation of complainant and removed the brush swallowed by him. Complainant had to spend Rs.3,00,000/-on his treatment alongwith his valuable time and danger to his life. All this happened due to negligence on the part of Ops, who assured complainant that there is nothing to worry. Though OPs took charges from complainant, but they did not do proper checking and proper treatment to him. If Ops had checked him properly, complainant would not have undergone the acute pre and post operative pain. OPs have not only been negligent in providing medical services, rather they also put his life into great danger. All this is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and has caused much harassment and tension to complainant and his family. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to pay the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- as medical expenses borne by him and for tension and agony suffered by him due to negligence in not doing proper check up and giving proper treatment to complainant.

   10                                              Ld counsel for OP-1 and 2 submitted written arguments on behalf of OP-1 and 2 and also advanced verbal arguments and has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted complaint filed by complainant is false and incorrect. It is averred that when something is inhaled in wrong way, in that situation, coughing is a normal reaction of the body to clear the throat and windpipe, but in present case, if tooth brush is inhaled, the windpipe gets chocked and in case of blocking or chocking of windpipe, air can not move in and out of lungs and person can not talk, cry, breath or cough and blocked windpipe is a life threatening emergency. Heimlich manoeuvre is used for clearing the chocked part and in present case, judging the situation of complainant, OPs have done the needful and even the attendants were satisfied at that time. Ld counsel for Ops has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that answering Ops never advertised that they are expert in removing or taking out swallowed objects, but in the present case, it was an emergency as complainant came to Ops as object swallowed was a tooth brush. Ops advised x-ray and it was explained that even if the tooth brush is not seen on x-ray, they should not be under impression that that brush is not there, since it may not be radio opaque and it could be that tooth brush has travelled to stomach and it is necessary to remove the brush by a scopy or surgery for which patient was referred to a higher centre. After this, patient did not follow up and never came back to OPs. It is further averred that answering OPs did everything diligently and prudently with utmost care and caution in treating the patient/complainant and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. There is no deceptive or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and complainant is not entitled to any compensation, rather complainant should pay Rs10,000/-to OPs for filing false and vexatious complaint against them. Ld Counsel for Ops further averred that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as OP-1 is insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd through its professional indemnity policy vide Policy No.041200/46/14/35/00002614 effective from 23.07.2014 to 22.07.2015. Ld Counsel for OPs further submitted that O-1P is an experienced and reputed doctor and is highly respected among all sections of society and it has never indulged in any kind of nefarious activity. OPs have been treating and curing his patients diligently and very prudently with utmost care. OPs provided the best medical treatment to complainant and during check up, tooth brush was not found either in food pipe or wind pipe, but still OP-1 performed x-ray and advised medicine as to be given in such situations, as it was an emergency situation. He further submitted that OPs did their duty with utmost care and caution and there is no negligence on the part of Ops. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

   11                                  Ld counsel for OP-3 argued that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has given a false and manipulated version with a view to illegally extract money from OP-3. Complainant has not given any detail that how he reached to the alleged amount of Rs13,00,000/-. Complaint filed by complainant is bad on account of mis-joinder of necessary party and is therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that no intimation regarding alleged health problem was ever given to answering OP either by complainant or by OP-1 and 2 and thereby preventing the same to gather first hand information of alleged health problem of complaint. It is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Ld counsel for OP-3 asserted that complainant has given irrelevant, highly exaggerated and false version in complaint and it is wrong that there is any fault on the part of respondent and treatment was given immediately by OP-1, which is standard treatment as per Food and Drugs Act and as per medical ethics and the same is as per the international standards and norms and internationally approved by World Health Organization guidelines. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

   12                                     We have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on  file by complainant and Ops.

   13                                           The case of the complainant is that on 15.07.2015, while brushing teeth, tooth brush entered into his food pipe and he was taken to hospital of Ops. The OPs checked him and also got conducted x-ray of complainant. The OPs declared that tooth brush has been dissolved due to internal heat of the complainant and there is nothing to worry and nothing more is to be done except to take some pain killers and antibiotics. The complainant paid consultation fee and charges for x-ray to OPs. On 18.07.2015, he felt acute pain in his stomach and he immediately rushed to Rajan Hospital, where after checking, doctor referred him to Delhi Heart Institute and Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda, where doctors checked him and after tests they found that tooth brush was still there in his stomach. As there is delay of more than two days, therefore, tooth brush has gone deep into the stomach and they had to do surgery immediately for removal of tooth brush. All this happened due to fault of OPs because they did not give proper medical advice/assistance within time. If they provided proper medical advice, the tooth brush must have been removed and complainant had not to undergo pre and post operative pains and all this amounts to  deficiency in service. In reply, OPs contended that present complaint is false, malafide and is not sustainable in law. Doctor is liable only when the injury has been resulted due to conduct of doctor or due to the fact that there is breach of duty of care or that he has no valid defence. A doctor is not necessarily liable in all cases where patient has suffered injury. This may either be due to the fact that he has a valid defence or that he has not breached the duty of care or that he has not done the duty with utmost care. Mere error of judgment occurs when doctor makes decision that turns out to be wrong. This is situation only in retrospective can we say there was an error. Doctor was not to be held negligible simply because something went wrong. Complainant has to prove negligence and deficiency in service on the part of doctor by using expert evidence or opinion and this is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and mere bald allegation of negligence will be of no help to complainant. In the present case, complainant approached OPs since object swallowed was a tooth brush and Ops advised x-ray and it was explained that even if it is not seen in the x-ray. Since, tooth brush may not be radio opaque object, it could be that it has travelled to stomach. The Ops have done everything with utmost care and there is no negligence or unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. They gave immediate treatment to complainant which is a standard treatment as per Food and Drug Act and as per medical ethics. To prove his case, ld counsel for complainant has produced medical literature ‘Clinical guidelines for Removal of Foreign Bodies in Upper Gastrointestinal Tract in the adults’ by European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), wherein it is observed that when a history of foreign body ingestion is elicited, a radiographic evaluation of the neck, chest and abdomen is recommended to assess the presence, location, size, configuration, and number of ingested objects. Furthermore, complications such as aspiration, free mediastinal/peritoneal air, or subcutaneous emphysema can be detected. To minimize exposure to radiation, plain radiography is recommended as the initial screening method, but false-negative rates are as high as 47%. Therefore, biplanar radiography is recommended if the object is not detected on plain radiographs.

             Most true foreign bodies can be identified radiographically; however, thin metal objects, wood, plastic, and glass and fish or chicken bones are not readily seen. For radiographic evaluation of food bolus impaction, false-negative rates of about 87% have been reported, so x-ray is not sufficient and not required in patients with non-bony food bolus impaction and without clinical signs of perforation. It is further observed that  if perforation is suspected based on the clinical  or radiological findings, CT is indicated. With CT, the shape, size, location and depth of the impacted foreign body and the surrounding tissue can be visualized, which is important in determining treatment options and evaluating the risks of endoscopic management. CT not only provides better anatomic information, but can also detect other complications such as abscess formation, mediastinitis, or aortic/tracheal fistulas. It is also observed that in Endoscopic Measures, Esophageal foreign objects and food bolus impacted in the oesophagus should be removed within 24 hours because delay decreases the likelihood of successful removal and increases the risk of complications. The risk for major complications i.e perforation with or without mediastinitis, retropharyngeal abscess and aortoesophageal fistula increases 14.1 times with foreign bodies impacted for more than 24 hours in the oesophagus. It is further observed that effectiveness of medical treatment of oesophageal food bolus impaction is debated. It is therefore, recommended that medical treatment should not delay endoscopy. It is further observed that ESGE recommends urgent (within 24 hours) therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy for the foreign bodies in the stomach such as sharp pointed objects, magnets, batteries and large/long objects. We suggest non-urgent (within 72 hours) therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy for medium sized blunt foreign bodies in the stomach. Ld Counsel for complainant has brought to our notice para no. 8 and 9 of written statement filed by OP-1 and 2 under Head FOR SWALLOWED OBJECT, wherein it is stated that anyone who is believed to have swallowed a foreign object should be watched for pain, fever, vomiting or local tenderness. Stools (bowel movements) should be checked to see if the object existed the body. This may sometimes cause rectal or anal bleeding. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) may be needed to confirm the diagnosis and remove the object. This procedure involves placing a tube through the mouth into the gastrointestinal tract. In severe cases, surgery may be needed to remove the object.

                                  That x-rays are a type of radiation, and when they pass through the body, dense objects such as bone block the radiation and appear white on the x-ray film, while less dense tissues appear gray and are difficult to see. X-rays are typically used to diagnose and assess bone degeneration or disease, fractures and dislocations, infections or tumours.

                               While doing MRI scans organs and tissues within the body contain magnetic properties. MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging, combines a powerful magnet with radio waves and a computer to manipulate these magnetic elements and create highly detailed images of structures in the body. Images are viewed as cross sections or ‘slices’ of the body part being scanned. There is no radiation involved as with x-ray. MRI scans are frequently used to diagnose bone and joint problems.

                                     In cases of urgency, after judging the situation the doctor advise for a computed tomography(CT) scan is similar to an MRI in the detail and quality of images it produces, yet the CT scan is actually a sophisticated, powerful x-ray that takes 360 degree pictures of internal organs the spine and vertebrae. By combining x-rays and a computer, a CT scan, like an MRI, produces cross-sectional views of the body part being scanned. In many cases, a contrast dye is injected into the blood to make the structures more visible. CT scans show the bones of the spine much better than MRI, so they are more useful in diagnosing conditions affecting the vertebrae and other bones of the spine.

                                     And further in parawise reply in para 10, it is stated that in this case it was an emergency and the complainant came to the respondents since the object swallowed was a toothbrush. OPs advised the x-rays and it was explained even if the toothbrush is not seen on an x-ray, don’t be under the impression that the brush is not there since it may not be radio opaque. It could be that brush has travelled to the stomach and the same needs to be removed by a scopy or surgery.

                                 He further brought our notice to the written arguments filed by ld counsel for OP-1 and 2 wherein para 6 of the written arguments they submitted that foreign body of such a size can not lodge in throat (pharynx) if swallowed as after being swallowed it would immediately go into stomach because of gravity. This can easily be understood by medical literature that oesophagus (food pipe) is a tubular structure and if any object enters oesophagus it will directly lodge in abdomen due to gravity.

                                     And in para no. 7 it is stated that in fact there are many procedures, instruments and manoeuvres available to remove foreign bodies by which even sharp foreign bodies (like blades, safety pins) can be safely removed endoscopically and in para no. 8 it is mentioned that extracting the foreign body endoscopically depends on the experience and competence of the Endoscopist. It is also mentioned that generally endoscopic approach is highly safe and effective. He argued that in his written statement and written arguments, OP-1 and 2 have already admitted that in case of complainant only investigation by x-ray is not sufficient and it requires further investigation through endoscopy and it is further submitted that Ops have been running Endoscopy Centre and claim themselves to be expertise in Endoscopy. So, only getting the x-ray of complainant i.e too not of stomach, rather it is of the chest is not sufficient and OPs should have to do endoscopy of complainant to diagnose the problem of complainant, which is not done by them, which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on their part. Ld counsel for complainant has put reliance on citation 2015(3)CLT page 01 titled as Manu Kumar Vs Akhilesh Kumar (Dr) &  Anr decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein it is observed that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-Medical Negligence-Res IpsaLoquiter-Doctor failed to read the x-rays properly- Three initial x-rays clearly showed the signs of fracture neck of femur, which OP failed to diagnose, but treated only fracture of shaft of femur-Patient developed further complications and physical disability-Held –It was not a bonafide mistake on the part of OP also; we don’t consider it as an error of judgment-it was just a deficiency and failure to take a reasonable care-Thus it is a negligence, committed by OP-Further held that, principle of Res IpsaLoquiter is applicable in this case-The Complainant in instant case is not required to prove the allegation of medical negligence by specifically adducing evidence inasmuch as the Ops have shown their negligence and misconduct in diagnosis and treatment of the femur neck fracture. He has further put reliance on the citation 2015(4) CLT 375 titled as Asha Abbhi Vs Kanpur Medical Centre Pvt Ltd & Others decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein it is held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-Medical negligence-Delay in treatment- The patient had distension of abdomen which was to be immediately explored either by proper investigations or surgical intervention-Surgery delayed-Pea of OP that, the relatives of patient denied giving consent for the operation-Whether a plausible defence, for not conducting emergency surgey?-Held-it was the bounden duty of the doctor to decide, the correct line of treatment-In the interest of saving the life of patient, the doctor should act-The OP just blindly accepted the words of relatives-this itself would be unethical-OP failed in his duty of care-Certainly, there was undue delay in diagnosis and treatment given to the patient, which was the cause of death-Revision petition allowed. He further argued that to prove the medical negligence on the part of the doctor expert opinion is not necessary in every case and in the present case no requirement of expert opinion is necessary. On this point, he put reliance on judgment passed by our Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2641 of 2010 date of decision 8.03.2016 titled as V. Kishan Rao Vs Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Another, wherein our Hon’ble Apex Court held that A.Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 23 and 3-Medical negligence – Claim of petitioners can not be rejected only on the ground that expert witness was not examined to prove negligence of Doctor – It is not required to have expert evidence in all cases of Medical negligence. 1. There is no law to have expert evidence in all cases of medical negligence. 2. In most of the cases the question whether a medical practitioner or the hospital is negligent or not is a mixed question of fact and law and the Fora is not bound in every case to accept the opinion of the expert witness. 3. There may be simple cases of medical negligence where expert evidence is not required.4. Those cases should be decided by the Fora under the said Act on the basis of the procedure which been prescribed under the said Act.

                       

                          Medical Negligence-Onus to prove – In a case where negligence is evident, the principle of res ipsa loquitur operates and the complainant does not have to prove anything as the thing (res) proves itself – In such a case it is for the respondent to prove that he has taken care and done his duty to repel the charges of negligence.

   14                          We have heard the arguments of both the parties and gone through the record placed on file and evidence lead by respective parties. We are fully convinced with arguments advanced, medical literature and case law produced by ld counsel for complainant and we come to the conclusion that OPs have not provided proper medical treatment and advice to complainant and due to their negligent behaviour, the problem of complainant became deteriorated he had to undergo surgery. All these acts of Ops amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Hence, case in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are ordered to pay Rs.49,120/-paid by complainant to Delhi Heart Institute and Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda for his treatment vide Ex C-5 . Ops are further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-(two lacs) to complainant as compensation for pre and post operative medical expenses and for special diet, health loss and for compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per anum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e 10.09.2015 till final realization. It is further directed to OPs to pay Rs3000/-as litigation expenses to complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

   Announced in open Forum:

   Dated: 25.05.2016

   Member                Member             President       (Parampal Kaur) (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)