BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.86/13.

Date of instt.: 08.05.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 27.07.2015.

Karambir S/o Jagat Singh, resident of Village Nand Karan Majra, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Dr. Arvind Gupta, MBBS M.S. (ENT) Shri Jai Parkash Hospital near Pehowa Chowk, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 54, Janpath Canaught Place, New Delhi.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. S.P.Nain, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. C.S.Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for Op No.2.

                       ORDER

(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he felt pain in the right ear and approached the Op No.1 for diagnose and treatment on 15.10.2010.  It is alleged that the Op No.1 after diagnose prescribed the medicine on the letter pad and the complainant took the medicines as per advise of Op No.1.  It is further alleged that on 01.11.2010 the Op No.1 operated the nose of complainant and received Rs.10,000/- as expenses of the operation and medicines.  It is further alleged that the complainant attended the Op No.1 on several dates and took the medicines from him.  It is further alleged that on 16.11.2011 the Op No.1 operated the ear of the complainant and charged Rs.10,000/- and also took the medicines as per advise.  It is further alleged that the complainant did not feel any improvement in the pain of ear as the Op No.1 did not diagnose carefully and properly rather acted negligently.  It is further alleged that the complainant has become 53% disabled due to the negligent treatment of the Op No.1.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that Karambir patient approached the Op No.1 with complaints of nasal blockage and bilaterally decreased hearing earache and heaviness in ear.  The said patient first of all was given medicines but the said patient did not respond to oral medications and hence, the complete investigations including x-ray, clinical hearing assessment was done of said patient and after proper assessment was diagnosed as having deviated nasal septum with Right Secreatory ottitis media (DNS with Rt. SOM), bil hearing loss, complaint of heaviness in right ear with bilateral decreased hearing, nasal blockage and with history of occasional bilateral ear discharge.  Since the said patient was not responding to medicines, thus the said patient was advised submucosal resection of nasal septum as according to literature the deviated nasal septum is of the common cause of Secreatory ottitis media which again can cause decreased hearing.  Even long standing cases of Secreatory ottitis media can also leads to perforation of the ear drum which can complicate the hearing.  Thus, after having obtained the necessary consent, the said patient was operated for SMR on 30.10.2010 after the prior informed consent that his hearing problem may or may not improve with the surgery and packing was removed on 01.11.2010.  The said patient was operated only for the nose to the extent indicated above and no any other surgery of any kind as alleged of the said patient has been done by Op No.1.  The loss of hearing as alleged is pre-existing and was present before surgery and it can be age-related and which may be aggravated due to Secreatory ottitis media.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C13 and closed evidence on 22.07.2014.  On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1(Op1) to R10 (Op1) and closed evidence on 08.01.2015.  The Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and document Ex.R2 and closed evidence on 08.01.2015.      

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     In the present case, we have gone through the evidence produced by both the parties very minutely and thoroughly in detail.  In this case, the complainant felt pain in his ear and approached the respondent No.1 with the complaints of nasal blockage and bilaterally decreased hearing on 15.10.2010.  The complainant was given medicines but he did not respond to oral medications.  The complete investigations including X-ray, clinical hearing assessment was done of the complainant and after proper assessment, he was diagnosed as having deviated nasal septum with Right Secreatory ottitis media (DNS with Rt. SOM), bil hearing loss, complaint of heaviness in right ear with bilateral decreased hearing, nasal blockage and with history of occasional bilateral ear discharge.  Since the complainant was not responding to medicines, he was advised submucosal resection of nasal septum as according to literature the deviated nasal septum is of the common cause of decreased hearing.  The complainant was operated for SMR on 30.10.2010 after the prior informed consent that his hearing problem may or may not improve with the surgery.  The consent letter was signed by the complainant himself and his brother (Ex.R1).

6.     It is very important to mention here that prior to this operation, Pure Tone Audiometery was done which clearly shows that the left and right ears already have severe mixed hearing loss (Ex.R4).  According to audiogram dated 30.10.2010, the complainant was having hearing loss of 71.66 db hearing loss in right ear and 90 db in left ear.  Again, another audiogram was conducted on 20.06.2011 which shows that hearing loss in right ear was 35-40 db and 60-70 db in left ear.  Interpretation of audiogram on 20.06.2011 shows that in right ear, it was mild hearing loss and in left ear, it was moderate to moderately severe loss of hearing.  Both audiogram shows that there was an improvement in hearing rather than loss. 

7.     Keeping in view the above facts, the complainant was operated only for nose to the extent indicated above and no any other surgery of any kind as alleged of the said complainant has been done by the respondent No.1 on 16.11.2011.  No proof of second surgery was produced by the complainant.  The alleged loss of hearing is pre-existing and was present before surgery and it can be age-related and which may be aggravated due to Secreatory ottitis media.  The respondent No.1 has treated the complainant while operating with SMR procedure with utmost due diligence and care inconsonance with standard medical norms, as required in the given circumstances.  So, question of any negligence on any count on the part of respondent No.1 does not arise. 

8.     Thus, in view of above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency and negligence on the part of Op No.1, hence, we dismiss the complaint.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.27.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.