BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 127 of 2012
Date of Institution : 6.7.2012
Date of Decision : 1.6.2016
Bimla, aged 40 years wife of Sh.Bansi Lal son of Sh.Dhanna Ram, r/o village Panniwala Mota, tehsil and distt.Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Dwarka Ram s/o Sh.Surja Ram, Caste Nayak, practicing as doctor in village Panniwala Mota, tehsil and district Sirsa
- Dr.Sat Pal Narula, Chairman, Astha Hospital, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa. ...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA………………. ……PRESIDENT.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……… MEMBER.
Present: Sh.P.K.Berwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainant is that on 2.4.2012, the husband of complainant Sh.Bansi Lal developed vertigo and due to emergent situation, Op no.1 was called at the house of complainant, who checked the husband of complainant and administered an injection to him and also advised to shift him in Astha hospital. The complainant and her family members got admitted Bansi Lal to the hospital of op no.2. Op no.2 on his prescription slip mentioned head injury and got conducted the CT scan and also diagnosed that Bansi Lal has some neurological problem. Op no.2 started the treatment of Bansi Lal, but day by-day, the condition of Bansi Lal started deteriorating and became unconscious . Bansi also also developed bedsore due to negligence and carelessness on the part of Op no.2 and ultimately on 9.4.2012, op no.2 discharged Bansi Lal in a very serious condition by charging a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant as cost of treatment, hospital charges etc. At later stage, it came to the notice of the complainant that op no.2 does not have the requisite qualification and degree for treating the patients suffering from neurological problems.
2. In the night of 9.4.2012, husband of complainant was brought to the hospital of Dr.Jagdish Chaudhary, Sirsa, who checked him and diagnosed that Bansi Lal is having neurological problem and advised to take him to Sanghi Neurological Clinic, Rohtak. Thereafter, Bansi Lal was taken to that hospital from where he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Thus, both the opposite parties in collusion with each other have ruined the life of husband of complainant. Hence, the present complaint.
3. On notice, opposite party no.1 did not put in appearance and therefore, he was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 31.8.2012.
4. Opposite party no.2 appeared and contested the case by filing reply. It is submitted that he is MD and is running a Multi Speciality hospital and well experienced. On 2.4.2012 patient Bansi Lal was brought to his hospital in a very serious condition and he was having a respiration difficulty. The oxygen saturation was 60% only and the patient was also vomiting. Op no.2 immediately administered life saving drugs and anti-convulsion medicines and a tube was put in the lungs to take out the secretions in order to improve the oxygen level. Day by day, the condition of the patient improved and he was opening and closing the eyes with verbal commands. Lateron, the patient was discharged for taking him to higher centre for further treatment. It is further pleaded that one Lala Ram a brother of patient had moved a complaint to the deputy Commissioner, Sirsa on 20.4.2012 during the life time of Bansi Lal, which was referred to the Civil Surgeon, Sirsa for enquiry. CMO conducted enquiry and found that false allegations were made against him.
- In order to prove her case, the complainant have tendered in evidence
the medical records Ex.C1 to Ex.C13; whereas the Op no.2 produced Ex.R1-his own supporting affidavit.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is admitted fact that the husband of complainant namely Bansi Lal was got admitted in the hospital of opposite parties. From Ex.C1, it is clear that on 2.4.2012 he was admitted in the hospital of op no.2 and was treated. It is also an admitted fact that he was discharged from the hospital of op no.2 on 9.4.2012 after charging Rs.60,000/- as hospital expenses. The contention of the complainant is that due to negligence and carelessness of the opposite parties, the condition of Bansi Lal became serious day by day. But, the complainant has not placed on record anything to show that prior to admission of Bansi Lal in the hospital of opposite parties, he was having problem of Vertigo. As per the document Ex,C11-death certificate of Bansi Lal placed on record by the complainant, Bansi Lal died on 8.8.2012. Thus, during the period from 2.4.2012 to 8.8.2012, husband of complainant namely Bansi Lal was got admitted in various hospitals and various doctors treated him and diagnosed different diseases. The complainant has placed on record the various tests conducted by various labs. The complainant has failed to prove any record that the opposite parties treated Bansi Lal wrongly. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation etc.
8. Resultantly, present complaint of the complainant stands dismissed with no order as to cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 1.6.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
