BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 158 of 2013                                                                       

                                                       Date of Institution         :    05.09.2013

                                                          Date of Decision   :    29.09.2016.

Pushpa D/o Sh. Krishan Lal (wife of SonuR/o Baragudha) resident of village Shakker Mandori, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Dr. Vikas Bhalla, C/o Vikas Navjat Shishu & Child Hospital, Surkhab Chowk, Near Jhunthra Petrol Pump, Aggarsain Park, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager at Sirsa.

                                                                              ...…Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH.S.B.LOHIA………………. ……PRESIDENT.      

          SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………                 MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Rakesh Pareek, Advocate for the complainants.

                   Sh.A.K.Gupta,  Advocate for the opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party no.2.                                   

ORDER

                   In brief, case of the complainant is that she gave birth to a male child who had a minor urinal problem. On 25.7.2013, complainant visited the hospital of opposite party no.1 for said problem. The op no.1 got admitted the baby and started treatment. On the asking of op no.1, the complainant got conducted his many tests from the laboratory. In the night hours, the condition of the child became serious upon which complainant called up no.1 to see the baby but he did not visit in night and came to hospital in the morning. But at that time the condition of the baby became very serious and op no.1 forcibly discharged the child and told to consult some other doctor. Thereafter, complainant consulted with Dr. R.N. Bana, Babylon Children Hospital, Sirsa but he told that a wrong treatment has been given by Dr. Vikas and there was no such disease to the baby for which treatment has been given by op no.1 and in fact the baby is suffering from kidney disease. Dr. R.N. Bana advised her to immediately go to Hisar for treatment. Thereafter, the complainant immediately went to Java Hospital at Hisar, but their the doctor told that there are no chances of life of baby and there on 28.7.2013 the child died. The op no.1 was very negligent towards his service. The complainant has spent an huge amount upon the treatment of his son. The complainant has also suffered a mental shock, pain and agony due to death of her son and therefore, is entitled to compensation of Rs.10 lacs from the opposite parties besides treatment expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply asserting therein that the male child of the complainant was 25 days old who had high grade fever and respiratory distress with a history of treatment for the last one week in a private hospital. The child was in a serious condition and was got admitted at about 10.30 p.m. The attendants of the child were not having any previous record of treatment. However, keeping in view the serious condition of the patient, the answering op immediately started the symptomatic treatment and was got admitted in ICU. The patient was kept under a continuous observation and was also checked from time to time. However, his condition did not improve. The attendants were duly apprised with the poor prognosis and were advised for ventilator in the morning on account of the respiratory distress and other parameters were also not good enough. However, the attendants of the patient refused to take the patient on ventilator and they showed their willingness to shift the patient to some higher centre. Accordingly, the patient was discharged at about 9.20 a.m. During this period, the answering op tried his best to maintain the required parameters and again the patient was taken to a private hospital as per his information. The complainant has concealed all these facts from this Forum which shows that complainant just wants to concoct a version. The patient remained admitted for less than 12 hours. The answering op is a qualified M.D. (Pediatrics) and is a child specialist and has been running his hospital for the last more than five years at sirsa. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                Op no.2 in its separate reply pleaded that Dr. Vikas Bhalla obtained professional indemnity policy No.111900/46/13/35/00000041 for the period of one year commencing from 6.6.2013 to 5.6.2014 subject to agreed terms and conditions. But answering op cannot be held liable for any deliberate violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by insured or his agent.

4.                In order to make out her case, the complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1, copy of prescription slip Ex.C2 and copies of test reports Ex.C3 to C5. OP no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of insurance policy Ex.R2. OP no.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.R3 and copy of indoor file as Ex.R4.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                 In the indoor file dated 25.7.2013 Ex.R4, it is mentioned that male child of 25 days of complainant was ill from last 7-10 days and had high grade fever since last 4/5 days and had respiratory distress. The child was admitted in the hospital of op no.1 at 10.30 p.m. in serious condition and prior to that he was admitted in some another hospital for the last one week. However, as the previous record of treatment was not produced before op no.1 and keeping in view the serious condition of the child, the op no.1 started treatment and he was got admitted in ICU. From the treatment record produced by the op no.1, it is revealed that child was kept under a continuous observation and was checked from time to time. In the night of 25.7.2013 various tests were got conducted by the doctor from the laboratory, so it cannot be said that opposite party no.1 refused to see the baby in night. Even the patient was checked up by the doctor in the early morning at 7.30 a.m. on 26.7.2013 and at that time as the child had respiratory distress, the attendants were advised for ventilator by the doctor but they refused and showed their willingness to shift the child to some higher centre and as such he was discharged at 9.20 a.m. on 26.7.2013 at the willing of attendant of child as is evident from the document in this regard. There is no report of Dr. R.N. Bana or any other hospital on record to prove that opposite party no.1 gave wrong treatment to the child. Rather the condition of the child was already serious when he was brought to the opposite party no.1 at night time and prior to that he remained admitted in some another hospital for about one week. Therefore, it cannot be said that condition of the child became serious in the hospital of op no.1 and the complainant has failed to prove that opposite party no.1 was negligent in treating his son.

7.                Keeping in view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                               President,

Dated:  29.9.2016.                            Member.              District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                         Redressal Forum, Sirsa.