Punjab

Sangrur

CC/206/2015

Gursewak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Rajiv Singla - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sumir Fatta

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

               

 

                                                Complaint No.    206

                                                Instituted on:      13.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       25.08.2015

 

Gursewak Singh aged about 20 years son of Gobind Singh son of Kirpal Singh, resident of H.No.113, resident of Patti Dullat, Village Mehal Chowk Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                                …Complainant.

                                Versus

1.             Dr. Rajiv Singla, Singla Hospital, Near Bus Stand, Near Railway Phatak, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

2.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                                …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Advocate.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Rattan Verma, Advocate.

For OP No. 2             :       Shri Ashish Kumar Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gursewak Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 4.6.2012, the complainant was going to his fields on his motorcycle and on the way the motorcycle in question slipped and due to that the complainant suffered injuries on his leg, as such, he was immediately taken to the hospital of OP number 1, where Dr. Rajiv Singla applied stitches on his wounds and administered an injection to the complainant and charged Rs.1000/-.  Thereafter the complainant fell unconscious immediately after administration of injection and after half an hour when the complainant gained consciousness, he felt that there was no sensation in his left leg and the OP number 1 advised the complainant to go to their home and come after a day, but no slip of any kind was issued by OP number 1 to the complainant or his father. At that time the complainant was studying in 10+2 as a private candidate.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that on 6.6.2012, the complainant along with his father and Sher Singh and Jagroop Singh approached OP number 1 and told that the leg of the complainant is becoming weak, but the doctor told that there is nothing to worry and everything will be right within a few days and the OP number 1 made dressing on the wounds of the complainant and prescribed some medicine and charged Rs.200/-, but no tests were got conducted by OP number 1.  Thereafter the complainant visited OP number 1 on 8.6.2012, 11.6.2012 and 14.6.2012 and on these occasion Ops number 1 made the dressing on the wounds and gave medicine to the complainant.  It is further stated that when the condition of the complainant did not improve, then he approached Basant Hospital, Sunam on 19.6.2012 and told all the story to Dr. Vikram, who going through the history of the complainant told that it is a case of ‘foot drop’ and that has happened due to administration of injection given by the OP number 1. The complainant again visited Dr. Vikram on 5.7.2012 and thereafter he approached Dr. Puneet of Phull Hospital, Patiala, where he undergone few tests and received treatment for sometimes there and Dr. Puneet clearly told that it is a clear case of foot drop and thereafter the complainant went to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana and from where he went to PGI Chandigarh, where he undergone surgery on his left foot. The doctors of PGI Chandigarh told that the complainant should have been immediately referred to neurology specialist by OP number 1.  During the whole of the process, the complainant spent a huge amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on his treatment.  It is further averred that due to the negligence of OP number 1 the complainant has suffered 50% permanent disability.  Further case of the complainant is that on 3.9.2012, the father of the complainant filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur to take action against OP number 1, who sent it to District Tikakaran Officer for inquiry, who held that Dr. Rajiv Singla is not negligent as no injection has been administered by Dr. Rajiv Singla.  Thereafter the father of the complainant again approached Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, who sent the complaint of father of the complainant to Sub Divisional Magistrate Sunam for inquiry, who after proper inquiry found Dr. Rajiv Singla guilty of administering wrong injection, which became a cause of foot drop and sent his detailed report dated 5.2.2013 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, but no action was taken against OP number 1.  It is further stated that due to the negligence act of the OP number 1, the whole life of the complainant has been spoiled. It is further stated that previously the complainant filed the complaint on the same cause of action which was withdrawn on 4.3.2015 due to some technical defects with a permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay him a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of medical negligence along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses. 

 

3.             In written reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that OP number 1 did not administer the injection to the complainant and complainant never got treatment from the OP number 1 on 4.6.2012, as such, it is stated that the present complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is further stated that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious one and has stated that the present complaint should be dismissed with special costs.  On merits, it has been denied that the complainant on 4.6.2012 got slipped from the motorcycle and due to that he suffered injuries on his leg and on the other parts of the body. It has been denied further that the complainant ever approached him on 4.6.2012 and he ever applied any stitches on his wounds and administered the injection to the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that one person namely, Gursewak Singh visited OP number 1 first time on 6.6.2012 and shown his wounds and OP number 1 gave treatment to that person and charged regarding the same. It is stated that Gursewak Singh again visited OP number 1 on 8.6.2012, 11.6.2012 and 14.6.2012. It has been denied that the wrong treatment was given to the complainant.  It has been denied that the complainant visited Basant Hospital, Sunam on 19.6.2012 and Dr. Vikram told him that it is a case of ‘foot drop’ due to wrong administration of injection.  It has been further denied for want of knowledge that complainant visited Phull Hospital, Patiala, DMC Hospital, Ludhiana and PGI Hospital, Chandigarh for his treatment.   It has been stated that there is no negligence on the part of OP number 1 as no injection was ever given on 4.6.2012 to the complainant.  The report of SDM Sunam is stated to be on wrong facts as he ignored the statements and record of OP number 1 while holding Dr. Rajiv Singla as guilty.  It is further stated that the complainant filed a false complaint before the Deputy Commissioner Sangrur, which was referred to Civil Surgeon for inquiry and Civil Surgeon Sangrur constituted the board and after an enquiry the board found that Dr. Rajiv Singla is not negligent at the time of giving treatment to the complainant.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.   

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is stated that on the request of the OP number 1, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Dirrba issued  a Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy w.e.f. 30.08.2011 to 29.08.2012 in favour of OP number 1 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The sum insured under the policy was Rs.10,00,000/- only for one year. It is stated further that neither the complainant nor OP number 1 lodged any claim with the OP number 2.  The other allegations in the complaint have been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of OPD Slip dated 6.6.2012,  Ex.C-2 copy of OPD slip dated 19.6.2012, Ex.C-3 copy of payment receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of OPD slip of Phul Hospital, Ex.C-5 copy of DMC record, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9 copies of bills, Ex.C-10 copy of OPD card of DMC, Ex.C-11 copy of bill of DMC, Ex.C-12 copy of report of DMC, Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14 copies of OPD cards of PGI, Ex.C-15 copy of OPD slip of Dr. Vivek Kumar, Ex.C-16 copy of OPD Card of DMC, Ex.C-17 copy of bill of DMC, Ex.C-18 copy of report of DMC, Ex.C-19 copy of bill, Ex.C-20 copy of final bill of PGI, Ex.C-21 to Ex.C-34 copies of bills, Ex.C-35 copy of final bill of PGI dated 8.4.2013, Ex.C-36 copy of test report, Ex.C-37 copy of operation Report, Ex.C-38 copy of discharge books, Ex.C-39 copy of disability certificate, Ex.C-40 copy of letter dated 3.9.2012, Ex.C-41 to Ex.C-48 copies of statements, Ex.C-49 copy of report dated 9.11.2012, Ex.C-50 copy of report of SDM, Ex.C-51 to Ex.C-55 copies of letters, Ex.C-56 copy of report of board of doctors, Ex.C-57 affidavit of Ram Singh, Ex.C-58 affidavit of Sher Singh, Ex.C-59 copy of affidavit of Gobind Singh, Ex.C-60 affidavit of Jagroop Singh and Ex.C-61 affidavit of complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Dr. Rajiv Singla, Ex.OP1/2 affidavit of Dr. Vikram Jindal, Ex.OP1/3 order dated 4.3.2015, Ex.OP1/4 copy of MS certificate, Ex.Op1/5 copy of registration certificate with Punjab Medical Council, Ex.OP1/6 copy of renewal certificate, Ex.OP1/7 copy of report, Ex.OP1/8 copy of insurance policy, Ex.Op1/9 copy of record register, Ex.Op1/10 statement of Shri Sumir Fatta and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 copy of insurance policy and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, evidence of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             On 4.6.2012, the complainant fell down from motorcycle and suffered injuries on his leg and other parts of the body.  The complainant was taken to the hospital of OP number 1 by his father and OP number 1 applied stitches on his wounds and administered an injection to the complainant on charging Rs.1000/-.  After the injection, the complainant became unconscious and after half an hour, he gained consciousness and felt that there was no sensation in his left leg, then OP number 1 advised them to go to their home and come after a day.  Then again on 6.6.2012, the complainant along with his father and others visited OP number 1 and told him that the leg has become weak, but the doctor, OP number 1 assured them not to worry.  When the complainant was not getting any relief from OP number 1, so he consulted some other doctor, who informed that due to wrong administration of injection by OP number 1, it is now a case of ‘foot drop’ and the complainant should approach the doctors at PGI Chandigarh for the treatment and now after the treatment at PGI Chandigarh the complainant is suffering from 50% permanent disability on account of medical negligence on the part of OP number 1.  The matter was also reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur       and after the inquiry by the Tikakaran Officer,  the OP number 1 was not found guilty as there was no slip of treatment of 4.6.2012, whereas in the inquiry of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sunam, the OP number 1 was found guilty of medical negligence.

 

8.             In the written reply, OP number 1 has denied having treated the complainant on 4.6.2012 and has admitted that on 6.6.2012 the complainant visited him for the treatment and further submitted that the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sunam is based on wrong facts as he has ignored the statement of OP number 1 while holding him guilty, whereas the enquiry of Civil Surgeon, Sangrur has not found him guilty of medical negligence.  OP number 1 has denied having administered the injection on 4.6.2012 to the complainant. 

 

9.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that in the report of Tikakaran Officer, Ex.OP-7, it has been established that the ‘foot drop’ of the leg of the complainant is due to the administration of injection on 4.6.2012, but, as no slip has been produced by the complainant, so it cannot be stated that the same was administered by OP number 1.

 

10.            Now, as per the version of OP number 1, if the complainant has not come to him on 4.6.2012, then why the complainant has been moving from pillar to post all the years as there was no personal enmity between the parties.  Further OP number 1 has categorically denied having treated the complainant on 4.6.2012 and as such has denied having administered the injection on the left side of the complainant.  But, then if the OP number 1 has not treated the complainant on 4.6.2012 then why the complainant visited him on 6.6.2012 for the treatment.    In support of his version, OP number 1 has produced date wise prescription register, which is Ex.OP-9 and on the bare perusal of this document, we find that on every line, name of the patient and age has been mentioned in serial order, but after serial number 26, we find one blank column and in the list of 5.6.2012, the name of the complainant has been mentioned at serial number 27 and again on serial number 30, though it has been deleted subsequently.  These entries and the only blank column in the list of 4.6.2012 gives rise to the suspicion that whatever OP number is saying is not beyond doubt.  More over, the document Ex.OP-9 is of only three days i.e. 4.6.2012 to 6.6.2012.  It further gives rise to the question as to why the entries of the subsequent dates have not been mentioned when there was ample space after the entries dated 6.6.2012 in the register.  All this gives indication towards the idea that when after the injection on 4.6.2012, the complainant fell unconscious, so the entry was not made in the register, though space for the same was left after the column number 26.

 

11.            The complainant has produced on record the affidavits of Sarvshri Ram Singh, Sher Singh and Gobind Singh, which are Ex.C-37, Ex.C-38 and Ex.C-39, respectively and all these persons have affirmed from time to time in support of the complainant’s version and his application dated 03.09.2012, which was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and the same is Ex.C-4 on record.  On this application of the complainant given to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sunam had investigated the claim and after summoning the parties had submitted the report which is Ex.C-50, in which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sunam had found the OP number 1 guilty of medically negligence.  Now, coming to the version of OP number 1, if the complainant had visited him for the first time on 6.6.2012, then as a doctor why he could not know that it was a case of ‘foot drop’ and why the treatment of foot drop was not given till he remained under the treatment of OP number 1.  The casual approach and carelessness on the part of OP number 1 gave rise to the further deterioration of the leg of the complainant, whereas on the first visit, Dr. Vikram Jindal had diagnosed the complainant on 19.6.2012 a case of foot drop, as is evident from the document, Ex.C-2.  In the document Ex.C-43, the OP number 1 on 8.10.2012 had requested the Investigating Officer that the complainant should produce the prescription slip of 4.6.2012, whereas father of the complainant in his statement, Ex.C-44 has stated that the slip was received by OP number 1 on 6.6.2012 when they visited him for the treatment on 6.6.2012. It seems that all this time, OP number 1 instead of treating the complainant has been trying to defend himself and instead of diagnosing the complainant properly has been treating him a case of ‘leg flexion’ , whereas it was a case of ‘foot drop’, so as the proper treatment was not given at the initial stage by OP number 1, so the complainant is now suffering from 50% permanent disablement.  The complainant in support of his version has placed on record the treatment record of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and on 26.6.2012, as per the document Ex.C-10 , the complainant was treated for ‘foot drop’ as in the treatment it has been mentioned ‘left gluteal region I/M injection left foot drop’ and all this shows that the foot drop is outcome of the injection on the left leg.  The medical report Ex.C-5 also mentions that ‘left C.P- Nerve – Injury – Post injection’.  All these reports are suggestive and corroborates the version of the complainant that due to the injection, nerve has been injected and as a result of the same, the complainant suffered from ‘foot drop’ and now the complainant is suffering from 50% permanent disablement and the complainant had to visit so many hospitals and had to consult so many doctors and have also remained admitted in the PGI Chandigarh from 8.4.2013 to 15.4.2013 as per the document Ex.C-38.   So, had the OP number 1 treated the complainant properly and he would have diagnosed him at the right time a case of ‘foot drop’ ad should have referred him to the medical expert at the early stage, then the complainant would have not suffered so long and would have been treated earlier, but OP number 1 without understanding the gravity of the condition of the complainant started treating him for ‘leg flexion’ whereas it was a case of foot drop.   The learned counsel for OP number 1 argued vehemently that the present complaint is time barred, but the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there is continuous cause of action as the complainant was visiting PGI Chandigarh even upto 29.4.2013. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Munishwar Prasad Shukla versus Dr. P.K.Agarwal and another I(2014) CPJ 172 (UP State Consumer Commission). 

 

 

12.            Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 14.5.2009 in Civil Appeal no.4119 of 1999 in Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prasanth S. Dhananaka and others, in which the Hon’ble Apex court of India has held that ‘once the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant, by making out a case of negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor concerned, the onus then shifts to the hospital or attending doctors. It is for the hospital to satisfy the court that there was no lack of care or diligence.  Further the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No.19 of 2009, decided on 24.4.2014 in Dr. Baidyanath Chakraborty and others versus Chandi Bhattacharjee and others, in which the Hon’ble National Commission has held “The Law of negligence applies to doctors, as it applies to other professionals like lawyers, architects, etc. as they are required to perform the task assigned to them with the requisite skill and expertise possessed by them for performing that task. Any reasonable man entering into a profession which requires a particular level of learning to be called a professional of that branch, impliedly assures the person dealing with him that the skill which he professes to possess shall be exercised with reasonable degree of care and caution.”

 

13.            In the light of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the OP number 1 is deficient and is guilty of medical negligence as he was careless and was gross negligent in attending the patient.

 

14.            So, keeping in view the above facts, we allow the complaint and direct Ops number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- being the amount of compensation on account of medical negligence and further direct them to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- being the amount of litigation expenses. The above amounts shall be paid by the Ops jointly and severally.

 

15.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 25, 2015.

                                                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member