Haryana

Sonipat

68/2014

MRS. HUSNA W/O IKARAR AHMAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. VIBHA DUA - Opp.Party(s)

RAJBIR MALIK

29 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.68 of 2014

                                Instituted on:19.03.2014

                                Date of order:01.07.2015

 

Husna wife of Ikarar Ahmad, r/o H.No.14/473, Mamu Bhanja Chowk, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.Dr Vibha Dua, Medical Officer, Dua Hospital, Hem Nagar, Delhi road, Sonepat.

2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 134/135, Sahu Plaza Building, 3^rd Floor, Sneh Nagar, Alam Bagh, Lucknow, service to be effected through Branch Office Atlas road, Subhash Chowk, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Rajvir Malik, Advocate for complainant.    

          Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. R.S. Malik Adv. for respondent no.2

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that on 1.4.2013 she was got admitted in the hospital of the respondent  and on diagnosis was found to have Fibroid Uterus and operation abdomen and hyst.c right sided salping hoopho-rectomy was done on 1.4.2013 and due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent after post operation a glucose bottle fall on the part where the surgery was done and due to this stitches were broken and there was infection and bleeding started. The respondent called some doctors from outside and the complainant was advised to shift the complainant to Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi on 3.4.2013.  However, the complainant was shifted to Maharaja Agarsain Hospital, New Delhi on 3.4.2013, where the doctors of the said hospital found post operation TAH with sepsis with transaminitis with pulmonary embolism and admitted the complainant and started her treatment.   The complainant remained in the said hospital from 3.4.2013 to 14.4.2013 and has spent Rs.4 lacs on her treatment. The complainant and her husband has requested the respondent to compensate her to the tune of Rs.4 lacs due to the deficiency and negligence services rendered by the respondent, but this request has not brought any fruitful result and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has come to the respondent hospital on 1.4.2013 and on her examination, she was found to be a known case of diabetes and bleeding from her uterus.  She was admitted in the hospital as she was suffering form fibroids of uterus.   The complainant gave her consent for operation.  The operation was successful and on 3.4.2013 she developed sudden breathlessness  for which Dr HK Chhabra  was called who gave his opinion that this was a known complication in diabetic patients after major operations and the complainant was referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital,  New Delhi, but the complainant was taken to Maharaja Agarsain Hospital, New Delhi.  False allegations regarding deficiency or negligence in treatment, has been leveled by the complainant against the respondent.  The glucose bottle as alleged by the complainant has never fallen on the operative part of the body.  No such incident has ever taken place at all during the period of her admission or stay in the hospital of the respondent. The complainant was very well attended by the respondent and her staff. Calling of a doctor from outside does not establish in any manner that the condition of the complainant had worsened due to any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The respondent is not liable in any manner to pay Rs.4 lacs as compensation to the complainant. The respondent has not caused any unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.  The allegations of negligence in treatment or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent are totally false and baseless.  The complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation from the respondent as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          In reply, the respondent no.2 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has submitted that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent doctor.  However, as per professional indemnity policy, the respondent no.2 is only liable in case of any negligence or deficiency  in service on the part of the respondent doctor Dr Vibha Dua in treating the complainant is proved.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs from the respondent as the respondent has treated the complainant negligently and has rendered deficient and negligent medical services to the complainant.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has argued that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint by alleging false and baseless allegations against the respondent.  There is no deficient or negligent medical services on the part of the respondent. The complainant was well attended by the respondent and her staff and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

         Now the main question arises before this Forum for consideration is that whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation or whether the respondent no.1 was negligent or deficient while treating the complainant?

         After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records placed on the case file very carefully, this Forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency or negligence on the part of the respondent.  The complainant to prove that the respondent no.1 was deficient and negligent while treating her, has failed to adduce any expert evidence and in the absence of expert evidence, the allegations of deficiency and negligence on the part of the respondent no.1 cannot be proved.  Further the treatment history of Maharaja Agarsain Hospital available on the case file, no where state any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1. Accordingly, it is held that the present complaint of the complainant fails due to lack of evidence i.e. there is no expert opinion on the file which may go to prove that the respondent no.1 was deficient or negligent in any manner.  Thus, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

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

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:01.07.2015