BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.166 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          10.03.2014

                                                   Date of Decision:             20.05.2015

Harvinder Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of House No.1384, Sector 45, Burail, UT, Chandigarh.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Eye Hospital Charitable Trust, Sohana, District Mohali (Punjab) through its Managing Director.

2.     Dr. Gagandeep Singh.

3.     Dr. Gurpreet Singh

4.     Dr. Gaurav

        All of Eye Hospital Charitable Trust, Sohana, District Mohali.

5.     Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Managing Director SCO No.109-110-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

6.     L&T General Insurance Company Limited through its Managing Director, P&T House N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Ms. Pooja Nagra, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Jasneet Singh, counsel for OP Nos.1 to 4.

Shri Amanpreet Singh, counsel for OP No.5.

Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for OP No.6.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’):

(a)    to pay him compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for extorting money illegally and dishonestly and causing him mental agony, bodily pains, reduction in health and unusual rent @ Rs.3500/- per day etc.

(b)    to pay him litigation expenses.

                The complainant’s case is that the complainant suffered some injuries due to altercation on 28.01.2014 and he was admitted by PCR Van to OP No.1 in injured condition.  OP No.3 treated him who informed the complainant that his right shoulder has been dislocated for which the complainant was to be shifted to recovery room. OP No.3 further informed that his four ribs were also fractured. The complainant was shifted to room No.23 and he demanded CT scan and x-ray reports which were not given to him despite repeated requests.  Under the supervision of OP No.2 the complainant was used to be given sleeping medicines, strong antibiotic medicines and pain killers due to which the complainant was feeling weakness, irritation, high blood pressure, depressing and heart palpitation.  The complainant asked the doctor as to why he was feeling such problems. The doctors told him that there was fluid under the ribs due to fracture.  The complainant sought reports, x-rays and CT scan to which the OPs flatly refused. The health of the complainant started deteriorating day by day and he was not in a position to walk. The complainant was also not given proper food during his hospitalization.  Due to continuous deterioration of his health, the complainant went to Govt. Medical College & Hospital,
Sector 32, Chandigarh where he was admitted and was examined thoroughly.  The complainant underwent four x-rays, two ultrasounds and the doctors disclosed to the complainant that there had not been any dislocation of the shoulder and also there is no fracture in the ribs.  The complainant got much relief within four days at GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh.  Thus, the complainant has suffered great financial loss, loss of health due to the acts and malpractice of the OPs. 

2.             OP Nos.1 to 4 in the written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action is available to the complainant against these OPs. The bald allegations made by the complainant are prima facie false and incorrect.  On merits, it is pleaded that  the complainant was brought to the hospital at about 10.30 PM by PCR on 29.01.2014 in an inebriated condition and alleged assault and the car run over on his right side. The complainant was having pain in the right side of chest and right shoulder. The initial clinical examination indicated fracture in ribs and dislocation of right shoulder but after conducting x-ray the dislocation of shoulder was ruled out.  As per x-ray report there was infection/presence of fluid in chest. The CT scan report confirmed that there was fracture in ribs. The case of the complainant was a medico legal and as per established medical norms reports of investigation are not supplied directly to the patients but are handed over to the concerned police authorities. The reports of the complainant were handed over to the ASI of PS Sohana vide letter dated 01.03.2014.  The complainant was given the required treatment for chest infection and pain. The OPs have denied that health of the complainant deteriorated during his admission with them.  Rather his health was improving well.  The complainant was discharged on 04.02.2014 in a satisfactory condition.  As per the history given by the complainant he is an alcoholic, chain smoker and habitual of consuming poppy husk and such habits cannot lead a person towards healthy life. The Sector 32 Hospital has not told the complainant that he was not having rib fractures.
Thus denying any negligence and deficiency in service on their part, these OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.5 in its separate written statement has pleaded that OP No.1 was insured with it vide insurance policy valid from 22.11.2013 to 21.11.2014 for professional negligence indemnity policy but the claim should be falling under bodily injury and/or death of any patient caused by or alleged to have been caused by error, omission or negligence in professional service rendered by the insured or qualified assistants of OP No.1.  There are no certain allegations with concrete evidence of professional negligence in the complaint against OP No.1. Thus, OP No.5 has also sought dismissal of complaint against it.

4.             OP No.6 in its separate written statement has pleaded that the complaint involved complicated question of facts and law which cannot be proceeded in summary trial by this Forum.  OP No.2 is insured with it under Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy valid from 16.08.2013 to 15.08.2014 covering the risk to the tune of Rs.10 lacs in any one year subject to other terms and conditions and exceptions of the insurance policy.  Thus, OP No.6 has also sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

5.             Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-61.

6.             Evidence of OP Nos.1 to 4 consists of affidavit of Adarsh Suri, Administrator and Manager Finance & Accounts Ex.OP-1/1; affidavits of Dr. Gagandeep Singh Ex.OP-2/1; affidavit of Dr. Gurpreet Singh Ex.OP-3/1 and of Dr.Gaurav Ex.OP-4/1; copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.

7.             Evidence of OP No.5 consists of affidavit of A.K. Ahmed, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex.OP-5/1 and policy alongwith conditions Ex.OP-5/2.

8.             Evidence of OP No.6 consists of affidavit of Piyush Lohar, its authorized representation Ex.OP-6/1 and policy alongwith conditions Ex.OP-6/2.

9.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by them.

10.           Admittedly the complainant remained admitted with OP Nos.1 to 4 from 29.01.2014 to 04.02.2014. The initial clinical examinations indicated fracture in ribs and right shoulder. However, as per OP No.1 to 4, the dislocation of shoulder was ruled out after examining the x-ray report and on conducting the CT scan it was found that there is fracture in ribs and some fluid accumulation in chest.  The complainant was treated for the same and was discharged in satisfactory condition. However, the grievance of the complainant is that despite knowing that there is dislocation of right shoulder, OP Nos.1 to 4 have not treated him causing him mental and physical pain and agony. For further treatment he has gone to Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32 Chandigarh and remained admitted therein from 05.02.2014 to 07.02.2014 and further the complainant has alleged that he was not provided the copies of investigation report such as CT scan etc. by OP Nos.1 to 4. 

11.           As per OP Nos.1 to 4 the admission of the complainant in their hospital is not disputed as is evident from Ex.C-1. So far as the grievance of the complainant of un-attending the dislocation of right shoulder is concerned, we have perused Ex.OP-1 i.e. indoor patient admission record maintained by OP No.1 to 4 during the stay of the complainant in their hospital. The perusal of clinical records and observations shows  that on 29.01.2014 i.e. on the day of admission the x-ray of right shoulder was got conducted by the OP Nos.1 to 4. After seeing the x-ray report the dislocation of the right shoulder was ruled out and copy of the x-ray report has been handed over by the OP Nos.1 to 4 to the police authorities as is evident from Ex.OP-4 as it was a medico legal case. Once the doctors have come to the conclusion on the basis of investigation report that there is no dislocation of the right shoulder, therefore, no treatment was warranted and they have not rightly provided any treatment. Therefore, on this account we do not find anything amiss on the part of the OP Nos.1 to 4.

12.           So far as other treatment given to the complainant as indoor patient with OP Nos.1 to 4 is concerned, as per diagnosis there was fluid accumulation in the chest. The complainant was given medicines and after the medicines the condition has improved as is evident from the report of Sector 32 Hospital Ex.C-8 which clearly shows that no fluid was seen. Even the perusal of records of the Sector 32 Hospital does not reveal any fracture or dislocation of the right shoulder. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant of not treating him properly by the OP Nos.1 to 4 is ill founded.

13.           In view of above discussion, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

May 20, 2015.          

                                (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member