BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Nisha Chandna w/o Manoj Chandna, r/o #210/4, Krishan Colony, Maal Godam Road, Bhiwani, Haryana

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Dr. Shamer Singh Memorial Radio-Diagnostic Center, S.C.F. No. 13-14, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh, through Dr. Baljit Kaur

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Surinder Chandna, Adv. for complainant.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

              Succinctly put, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- to Dr. Shamer Singh Memorial Radio-Diagnostic Center (OP) towards the fee for carrying out the test for CT Scan for abdomen, Oral and I/V Non-Ionic Constrast and received the report of the said test on 7.02.09, in which it was mentioned that uterus is normal and attenuation & both Adenexa are clear. Thereafter, the complainant noticed that the test has been carried out in gross negligence, as the uterus of the complainant had been removed much prior to the date of the test carried out by the OP. Due to this wrongful act of the OP, the complainant got her retest from some other Centre and paid a sum of Rs.5,500/- for the same test. The complainant stated that when she reached the OP and informed OP regarding the wrong test report given to him, the OP simply said that it happens.  When the complainant did not receive any response from the OP, a legal notice was served to OP. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             The complainant led evidence in support of his contention

3.              As this is a medical case, the complete set of the complaint was sent to the Director, Government College & Hospital, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh for expert opinion as to whether prima facie any deficiency in medical services is made out against the OP and whether the mention of uterus was going to adversely affect the treatment for the disease with which the complainant claims to have been suffering. The expert opinion of the report has been received and is placed on record.

4.             We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record. 

5.             Before admitting the complaint for regular hearing and issuing a notice to the OP, it was thought necessary in view of the authority of Hon`ble Supreme Court to obtain the expert opinion from Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh.  In the opinion dated 26.10.09, it was opined that in both the reports “a small atrophic uterus seems to have been visualized, which could be due to some remnant portion left behind after Laproscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVH) carried out on the patient in 2003”.  Since the opinion did not mention as to what its effect would be on the treatment to be given to the complainant, the matter was referred again.  The second report of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh dated 21.11.09, shows that “the management of the patient`s disease(pain abdomen thought to be due to the tubercular abdomen) for which the CT Scan was done, will not be  affected by the report of presence of the uterus”. In this manner, even if the presence of uterus was mentioned in the CT Scan, it had no adverse effect on the treatment as the treatment for pain abdomen was not affected due to the wrong report of the CT Scan given by the OP. The complainant very well knew that a Laproscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy has already been carried out on her, there was no problem or pain in the uterus and the report about the presence of uterus could be due to the reason that some remnant portions could be left behind after the said operation. In this manner, neither CT Scan report given by OP is wrong nor it can be said to have been given intentionally or negligently. What ever was observed by the OP was mentioned in the CT Scan report.  Otherwise also the mention of uterus did not affect the course of treatment.  It is not her case, if the wrong report of the OP regarding the presence of uterus has mislead the Doctors in giving her proper treatment.  She only wants to cash upon the alleged wrong report to enrich herself, which cannot be permitted.

6.             In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and therefore, no ground is made out to issue a notice to OP to face this complaint. Complaint, therefore cannot be admitted for regular hearing and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.