BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 188 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 06.07.2015.
Date of Order: 05.03.2019.
Sikender son of Shri Rattan, resident of village Jui Kalan, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
…..Complainant.
Versus
Dr. Neelam, Family Clinic, main Bazar, village Jui Kalan, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case are that complainant’s wife Mona was admitted with the OP’s clinic for her delivery on the assurance of OP for normal delivery and deposited Rs.10,000/- with the OP. It is alleged that on 25.10.2014, the delivery of complainant’s wife Mona was done by the OP and thereafter the complainant saw that his wife is not even reacting a bit, then he asked the OP to check her, but the OP carelessly and negligently told that at present Mona is un-conscious because she had ten stitches and also given two injections of Rs.2000/- and Rs. 1500/- and OP assured that after some time his wife become conscious and further told that your wife has been discharged and you can take her at your home. It is further alleged that when the complainant was on the way to home, then also his wife did not react a bit and on making call on OP’s mobile, firstly he did not pick up the call and later on OP switched off her mobile. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant immediately took her wife back to OP’s clinic, then OP instead of doing check-up of patient Mona, he behaved very badly with the complainant and said that “I don’t know, you can take her anywhere”. It is further alleged that on this the complainant immediately rushed to General Hospital, Bhiwani, where doctor’s said that it’s too late, Mona is no more. It is further alleged that autopsy of Mona was conducted by Dr. Raj Mehta and Dr. Ved Pal, Medical Officer GH, Bhiwani vide PMR No.RM/VPS/10/PMR/BWN/2014 dated 29.10.2014. It is further alleged that due to negligence of OP i.e. not providing proper medical treatment, the complainant’s wife lost her life. It is further alleged that a legal notice was served upon the OP on 7.3.2015 through his counsel, which was replied by the OP by concocting false story and did not compensate the complainant. It is further alleged that the OP has project herself as qualified and competent delivery specialist and Gynecologist and believing her complainant has admitted his wife in OP’s Nursing Home, but the OP failed in treating the patient in proper manner and with full care, which resulting into the death of the wife of complainant. It is further alleged that the operation theatre was very dirty and was not equipped with the machinery required for caesarean operation and which are necessary for deliveries. It is further alleged that the complainant was misguided by the OP just to extort money from him. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On notice, OP appeared and filed the contested written statement. It is alleged that the complainant’s wife Mona was firstly taken to PHC Jui on 17.10.2014 for delivery and from PHC patient Mona was referred to G.H., Bhiwani on the same day and due to the ignorance of the attendants the patient Mona was admitted at G.H., Bhiwani on 20.10.2014 and attendants brought back to her against LAMA without completing her investigation USG etc. on dated 20.10.2014. It is further alleged that on 28.10.2014 patient Mona was taken to family clinic of OP at Jui Kalan first time in morning and Dr. Neelam advised them to go any specialized Hospital or G. H. Bhiwani for her delivery, but attendants of the patient again taken her to OP’s Hospital (family clinic) Jui Kalan in the noon where she delivered a male child in emergency condition. It is further alleged that after delivery OP again told the attendants to take her to specialized hospital or G. H. Bhiwani for further treatment because patient Mona was anemic. It is further alleged that after the consent of the patient’s attendants (mother-in-law of Mona), they bring the patient and the new born baby back to their home on their own responsibility and wishes. It is further alleged that according to the investigation report of doctors it came to knowledge that according to statement of Anita (patient’s sister) wife of Krishan son of Shri Rattan Singh, in the evening they took the patient back to the family clinic of OP for further treatment because she was in critical condition at that time, but Dr. Neelam told them took her to the specialized hospital or G.H. Bhiwani for proper treatment. It is further alleged that on the way when they were shifting her to G.H. Bhiwani they also took her at a charitable hospital, Lohani but the doctors refused them that they have no such a facility which was required for the treatment of Mona at that time. It is further alleged that then they took her at G.H. Bhiwani and according to record of G.H. Bhiwani, she brought dead at 6.10 pm on 28.10.2014. It is further alleged that this clearly shows the negligence and non-willingness on the part of attendants of patient Mona and complainant to perform their duties. It is further alleged that due to supply of incorrect facts by the complainant, a wrong legal notice has been sent by Advocate Anil Kumar Sharma to the OP and a clear and detailed reply dated 16.4.2015 of legal notice has also been sent to the Advocate of the complainant. It is further alleged that on 25.10.2014 the delivery of the complainant’s wife was done. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for the dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.
3. The complainant to prove his case placed on record the affidavit as Mark A and the documents Annexure C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OP has failed in producing any evidence on record, despite availing several opportunities including many last opportunities and the evidence of the OP was closed by the court vide order dated 16.1.2019.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.
6. There are some facts which are admitted by both the parties. It is admitted fact that the wife of complainant was operated by the OP and she gave birth to a male child. It is also admitted fact that the complainant’s wife was Anemic. It is also admitted fact that the complainant’s wife was referred by the OP in a very serious condition. The only plea taken by OP is that the attendants of the patient were advised to go to Specialized Hospital or G. H. Bhiwani. This plea taken by the OP has no substance at all, because the OP has not placed on record even a single paper to show that the OP doctor has referred the patient to higher hospital. The onus to prove that the OP has referred the patient to some higher hospital is upon the OP, but the OP has failed in doing so. Mere taking plea in the written statement that the attendants of the patient were advised to go to some Specialized Hospital or G. H. Bhiwani is not sufficient, rather this fact has to be proved by the OP by leading some convincing and cogent documentary evidence, but the OP has failed to produce any evidence in support of her plea, despite availing several opportunities including the last opportunities and the evidence of the OP was closed by court order dated 16.1.2019. It appears that the OP has no documentary evidence to prove her plea. The OP has also failed to prove that the Hospital of the OP fulfills all the criteria & conditions to operate the delivery cases. In our view, the OP just to extract the money from the complainant, operated the wife of the complainant and keeps the patient in his clinic even in the critical condition of the patient. Moreover, the OP doctor has operated the patient despite the fact that the patient was anemic and this fact was also within the knowledge of OP doctor, as admitted by them in written statement. It is not understandable as to how the OP has admitted the patient in her clinic and operated for the delivery, despite the fact that the patient was anemic. The OP has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to show that there was any blood bank at her clinic or at Jui Khurd.
7. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs and the OP is directed to: -
i. To pay Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to death of wife of complainant caused due to negligence on the part of the OP doctor.
ii. To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as counsel fee as well as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i to ii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 5.3.2019. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 05.03.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
