BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 154 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 29.05.2015.
Date of Decision: 23.05.2019.
Smt. Shakuntala Devi wife of Om Parkash, resident of village Dhalanwas, District Jhajjar.
..….Complainant
Versus
1. Dr. R. C. Sharma, care of R. C. Sharma Hospital, Rohtak Road, Charkhi Dadri.
2. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch office at Opposite Civil Hospital, Ghanta Ghar, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Parties
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 Vijay Ranga, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Rupesh Sharma, Advocate for the OP No. 1.
Sh. Avinash Sardana & Sh. SK Ghanghas, Advocates for OP No.2.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the care are that the complainant was got admitted in R.C. Sharma Hospital, Charkhi Dadri due to her illness and on 5.4.2015 at about 2.00 PM the operation for anterior vaginal colporrhaphy for Cystocle was conducted by the Doctor of R. C. Sharma Hospital in a very negligent manner due to which condition of complainant became serious and reached in danger then at about 10.30 PM, the Doctor of R. C. Sharma Hospital referred her to PGIMS, Rohtak. It is alleged that the parents of complainant for better treatment got admitted the complainant at Advanta Super Speciality Hospital, Dev Colony, Delhi Road, Rohtak and the Doctors of Advanta Hospital after conducting USG re-operated the complainant and repair the vaginal vault right side ovary (Large Hematoma Free Fluid) and then her condition was recovered and she remained admitted upto 14.4.2015. It is further alleged that the complainant has suffered economical loss, mental & physical harassment due to negligent manner of Doctors of R. C. Sharma Hospital. It is further alleged that when the family members of the complainant met the doctors of R. C. Sharma Hospital, then Doctor R. C. Sharma felt sorry by admitting his mistake and also said that you can go for consumer Forum for compensation in this regard as my Hospital is insured by Insurance Company. It is further alleged that the complainant spent a huge amount near about 4 lacs on her treatment, medicine cost, transport etc. due to negligent manner of the OP. It is further alleged that in the above mentioned circumstances, it is apparent that the OP has committed negligence while treating the complainant at the time of operation. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On appearance, the OP No.1 filed contested written statement alleging therein that the complainant was admitted on 4.5.2015 with complaint of Vaginal Cystecele which happened after the previous operation of Hysterectomy done at Hansi. It is further alleged that the patient was told about the procedure and complicacy of treatment and after her consent and endorsed by her husband Om Parkash, Dr. R. C. Sharma operated and performed Vaginal Colporrhaphy for Cystocele with all medical norms and with due diligence. It is further alleged that after the operation she developed reactionary bleedings which can occur within 24 hours of operation due to several reasons including slipping of ligature, coughing or high Blodd Pressure or due to non-cooperative behavior of the patient. It is further alleged that after bleeding the patient was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, but in spite of reaching PGIMS, Rohtak patient was got admitted in some private hospital and was cured of the bleedings and discharged. It is further alleged that the patient was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak for apprehension of danger precautionary. Hence, in view of the above facts, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. On appearance, the OP No. 2 has filed its separate contested written statement alleging therein that as per the version of OP No.1 in the written statement the complainant was admitted on 4.5.2015 with complain of Vaginal Cystecele which happened after the previous operation of Hysterectomy done at Hansi. It is further alleged that the patient was told about the procedure and complicacy of treatment and after her consent and endorsed by her husband Om Parkash, the respondent No. 1 operated and performed Vaginal Colporrhaphy for Cystocele with all medical norms and with due diligence. It is further alleged that after the operation, she developed reactionary bleedings which can occur within 24 hours of operation due to several reasons including slipping of ligature, coughing or high blood pressure or due to non-cooperative behavior of the patient. It is further alleged that after bleeding the patient was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak but in spite of reaching PGIMS, Rohtak the patient was got admitted in some private Hospital and was cured of bleedings and discharged. It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 has pleaded that there is no negligence on his part. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for the dismissed of the complaint with special costs.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the duly sworn affidavit Ex. CW1/A & Ex. CW2/A and documents Annexure C1 to C61 in evidence and closed the evidence.
6. Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 has placed on record duly sworn affidavit as Ex. RW1/A and documents as Annexure R1 to R5 and closed the evidence. Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 2 has placed on record duly sworn affidavit as Annexure RW2/A and documents Annexure R2/1 to R2/2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the OP No. 1 was negligent in operating the complainant.
7. Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of the written statement. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 & 2 has argued that treatment was given to the complainant was as per all medical norms and with due diligence. He further contended that the complainant has earlier taken the treatment i.e. operated for Hysterectomy at Hansi and the doctor of OP No. 1 has operated the complainant after taking consent of husband of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
8. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserve acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is admitted fact that complainant was operated by the doctor of OP No. 1. It is also admitted fact that the complainant developed reactionary bleedings after operation. It is also admitted fact that after bleeding the patient was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has taken treatment from some private Hospital after referral and not from PGIMS, Rohtak. From the perusal of the Para No. 5 of the written statement of OP No. 1, it is clear that patient developed reactionary bleedings after operation and was referred to PGIMS Rohtak for further treatment. This fact clearly shows the negligence of the treating doctor of OP No. 1 Hospital. The complainant in support of its case has placed on record her duly sworn affidavit and duly sworn affidavit of her husband as Ex. CW1/A & Ex. CW2/A and numerous documents i.e. Annexure C1 to Annexure C61 and duly proved her case beyond doubts. On the other hand, the OPs have failed to produce some cogent and convincing documentary evidence to controvert the stand taken by the complainant.
9. Moreover, now-a-days the private hospital and private doctors have established their profession as business and they become businessmen. They have also got insured their hospitals with Insurance Companies, which also shows their tendency of treating their profession as business and they use to charge heavy charges from the patients and the families of the patients. This tendency is dangerous for the whole society. So in our view the complainant is also entitled for the compensation on account of financial losses, mental and physical harassment & punitive damages for deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of the OPs. Therefore, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, complaint is partly allowed and the OP No. 2 (being the Insurer of the OP No. 1 hospital) is directed:-
i) To pay lump sum Rs.2,25,000/- (Two lacs twenty five thousand only) being cost of treatment along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its final realization.
ii) To pay Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of OPs and punitive damages.
iii) To pay Rs.7000/- (Seven thousand only) as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. 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: - 23.05.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
