Uttar Pradesh

Bareilly-I

CC/174/2021

Jitendra Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Suresh Bhola - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION BAREILLY FIRST

 

                                   Present  :    1.  Radhey Shyam Yadav, H.J.S.,  President

                                                      2.  Mukta Gupta,                            Member

                                                      3.  Prashant Mishra,                       Member

 

 

Complaint Case Number  :    174  of  2021

 

Jitendra Kumar, aged about 27 years, son of Vijay Pal, resident of Noida, Sector- 168, Sun World Erista, Flat Number- 1106, Tower Number- 10, PIN – 201305, Permanent resident of Village- Beker Shahpur, Tehsil- Baheri, Post- Deoraniya, Bareilly.

                                                                                                     ................................. Complainant

                                                              Versus

 

1. Dr Suresh Bhola, Bhola Ortho and Dental Hospital, Opposite Railway Road, Sector Number  17,

Kurushetra, Haryana, PIN- 136118.

2. Dr Deepa Bhola wife of Dr Suresh Bhola, Bhola Ortho and Dental Hospital, Opposite Railway Road, Sector Number  17, Kurushetra,Haryana, PIN- 136118.

3. Satish Sharma, (Hospital Staff), Bhola Ortho and Dental Hospital, Opposite Railway Road, Sector Number  17, Kurushetra, Haryana, PIN- 136118.

                                                                                                            ....................   Opposite Parties

 

 

                                                                                 Date of Filing       :   27.07.2021

                                                                                 Date of Judgment :   06.05.2024

 

Counsel for Complainant    :  Mr Balesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate.

Counsel for Opposite Party :  Mr Sunil Goel,  Advocate.

 

 

                                                          JUDGMENT   

 

1.        The complainant has filed the petition against the opposite parties to recover a sum of Rs 20,00,000/- alleging negligent surgery and treatment.

2.          The brief story of complaint case is that the complainant undergone his left leg surgery in the hospital of opposite party number-1 Dr Suresh Bhola. The opposite parties had obtained signature of complainant on a consent letter under undue influence and misconception depriving him from any legal action. The opposite party number –1 had assured the complainant that he may walk without any assistance of stick.  About Rs 10,00,000/- was spent by complainant during surgery, medicine and treatment. The complainant could not attained the fitness and left leg deficiency was not removed due to negligence of opposite parties. The complainant has suffered physical and mental torture, financial loss & agony due to negligent treatment of opposite parties. Prayer has been made to recover Rs 20,00,000/- from the opposite parties.

3.             The photocopy of Adhar Card, Doctor’s certificate, discharge summary and legal notice has been produced as documentary evidence by the complainant. He has neither complied the order dated 16.07.2022 nor impleaded the Insurance Company as per written statement version of opposite parties. The complainant is not responding since long time. He has not filed any oral evidence on affidavit or otherwise in spite of providing several opportunities.

4.              The content of complaint case is vehemently denied by the opposite party number-1 & 2. It has been stated that the averment made in the petition is false and frivolous. The best possible medical facility and treatment was provided to the complainant. A concent letter was signed  voluntarily by the complainant to effect that no legal proceeding will be initiated after the treatment. The hospital is insured by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. There is no fault on part of opposite party.

5.              The contentions raised in the petition are neither supported by any cogent documentary evidence, nor the oral evidence on affidavit or otherwise filed by the complainant. The content of written statement and medical literature annexed herewith is unrebutted at this juncture.

 6.           Heard argument of learned counsel for opposite party and perused the record.  Learned counsel for opposite parties has argued that best possible medical facility was made available to the complainant. There was no fault on part of opposite parties. False, frivolous and malicious complaint case has been filed by complainant. The documentary evidence and medical literature produced by opposite party is unrebutted. There is no corroborative evidence from complainant side. Prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint case with special cost.

7.           The proceeding has continuously been ignored by the complainant. He has not produced any evidence in spite of providing adequate opportunities. There is nothing on record to support and corroborate the complaint version. The complaint case deserves dismissal.

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint case is therefore dismissed. However the parties shall bear their own cost.

 

 

 

   (Prashant Mishra)                               (Mukta Gupta)                                   (Radhey Shyam Yadav)

         Member                                             Member                                                    President 

 

The judgment was signed and pronounced in the open court today on dated 06.05. 2024.

 

 

 

   (Prashant Mishra)                               (Mukta Gupta)                                   (Radhey Shyam Yadav)

          Member                                             Member                                                    President