Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/59/2019

Gurmeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Geeta Nursing Home - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Saneja

14 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,FATEHABAD.

                                                                Complaint No.:59 of 2019.

                                                                Date of Instt.: 24.01.2019.

                                                                 Date of Decision: 14.12.2023.

 

Gurmeet Kaur wife of Charanjeet Singh resident of village Niyoli Kalan (Dhani) Tehsil & District Hisar.

                                                                  

                                                                   Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

1.Geeta Nursing Home Maternity and Surgical Hospital, Tau Devi Lal Market, G.T.Road, Fatehabad  through its proprietor.

2.Dr.Pankush Arora, Geeta Nursing Home Maternity and Surgical Hospital, Tau Devi Lal Market, G.T.Road, Fatehabad.

3.M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 4F/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandewalan, Ext.New Delhi 110055, Policy No.272200/48/2018/12600 for the period 15.09.2017 and is valid upto 14.09.2018 through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before:                  Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                   Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member.                                                                                  Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member

 

Argued by:            Sh.Manoj Saneja, Advocate for complainant.

                             Sh.U.K.Gera,Advocate for Ops No.1 & 2.                     Sh.N.D.Mittal, Advocate for Op No.3.                               

 

ORDER:

Sh. Rajbir Singh, President.

 

1.                          The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that joint of her right hand got injured during household work due to insertion of broken glass in her hand; that she visited Op No.2 who treated and conducted operation on the person of complainant by charging Rs.30,000/-; that on 15.07.2018, x-ray of the hand of the complainant, on which the operation was performed, was conducted in SL Minda Memorial Hospital, Hisar; that despite operation the pain in her hand remained as it was for many days; that the complainant visited the Ops but they avoided her by giving pain killers; that thereafter 12.01.2019 the complainant visited Civil Hospital, Hisar and got conducted X-Ray; that the complainant came to know about remaining the glass in her hand; that the doctor advised her for operation for removing the glass from her hand; that the complainant again visited the OP No.2 with x-ray report of Civil Hospital but again she was ignored; that the Ops have not treated the complainant properly and remained negligent in conducting the operation and even failed to redress her grievance, therefore, the act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

2.                          On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Ops No.1 & 2 in their joint  reply have submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as there was no negligence on their part in treating the complainant; that the replying Ops are well qualified and reputed doctors and the present complaint has been filed just to extract amount from the replying Ops; that the complainant was given medicines of 3 days and no excision/removal of foreign body in the right wrist was done; that thereafter the complainant lost the follow up and never turn up; that the treatment was given with care and caution, therefore, no case of medical negligency and deficiency in service is made out against the replying OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          OP No.3 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as maintainability and complaint is liable to be dismissed being filed on false and flimsy grounds.  It has been further submitted that the complainant had visited the doctor where she was advised for getting the lab tests done due to having foreign body in right wrist; that the doctor had only given some medicines for three days and thereafter the complainant had neither visited him nor had turned up again. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          No evidence has been led on behalf of the complainant despite availing ample opportunities, therefore, the evidence was closed by the order of the court on 26.07.2022 whereas the Ops have tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW3/A with document Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/2 and Ex.R3/1.

5.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the Ops no.1 & 2 have conducted professional misconduct in treating and diagnosing the complainant and remained negligent in performing the surgery, due to which she suffered a lot of pain and could not get relief in her ailment despite charging huge amount by them from her. On the other hand the Ops have come with the plea that the complainant was only advised for some lab tests besides giving 3 days medicine by OP No.2 but thereafter the complainant did not turn up.

6.                 After hearing both the counsels as well as going through the record placed on file, we are of the considered opinion that complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal because the complainant in her compliant  and pleadings have submitted that the Op No.2 had conducted operation on her person by charging huge amount of Rs.30,000/- and on not getting the relief, she had to visit another doctor at Civil Hospital, Hisar but mere mentioning/raising these facts are not enough to fix liability on the OPs as the pleas taken by her are not supported by any receipt/medical certificate/ treatment record of any of the doctor.

7.                          Moreover, in order to prove any medical negligence medical expert opinion is necessary before taking cognizance of a case involving the medical negligence. In the authority Pravin Laljibhai Vaghela Versus Dr. Binoy Palkhivala, 1996(2)CLT,249 it was held by the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Gujarat that  when no expert evidence was produced to prove medical negligence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in the absence of any evidence that the opposite party was negligent in giving treatment. In another case Dr. H.K.Jain Versus Sunil, 2000(1),CLT,1 it was held by the  Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Commission that for proving negligence by a doctor the plaintiff has to give proof to establish the allegations and expert evidence   will be necessary from a doctor  in the  same field of medicine. In the present case the complainant has neither produced any medical expert opinion nor has produced any document from which it could be gathered that she had ever appeared before the penal of experts for getting medical expert opinion on the case file. Moreover, she has also not moved any application before this Commission for getting the medical expert opinion to prove her pleadings. It is admitted fact that the complainant has been prescribed some medicines but mere prescription cannot be a ground for proving any deficiency on the part of OPs. 

8.                          Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances and following the observations made in the above citations

we have no doubt in our mind in holding that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any kind of medical negligence on the part of respondents and as such the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of this Commission, for perusal of parties herein. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 14.12.2023

 

 

                                                                                               

      (K.S.Nirania)                     (Harisha Mehta)           (Rajbir Singh)                             Member                                  Member                                President