District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.365/2018.

 Date of Institution: 02.08.2018.

Date of Order: 26.08.2022.

Sukhvir Singh S/o Shri Deep Chand @ Deepa r/o village Dundsa, Palwal District Palwal.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Goyal Hospital Nursing Home, Site No.2, Near Hanuman Mandir, Sector-8, Faridabad – 121006 through its Director.

2.                Drishti Eye Centre, 20-21F, Fruit Garden, NIT-5, Faridabad through its Dr. Lucky Kharbanda MBBS, MS (Orthalmology Fellow Medical Retina).

3.                M/s. the Oriental Insurance Company ltd., 4E/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi – 10055 through its Managing Director/Diector/Manager.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Kr. Birender Kumar Bhati,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  D.S.Tewatia,  counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.

                             Sh.  Jatinder Singh Nagar, counsel for opposite party No.3.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant admitted in the hospital of opposite party No.1 with the complaint myopic astigmat problem, but opposite party No.1 referred to the complainant to opposite party No.2 to get checked the left eye of the complainant.  Opposite party No.2 got checked the left eye of the complainant and after checking the eye  the opposite party No.2 advised to get operate his left eye and on the advise of opposite party No.1, the complainant was ready for operation and opposite party No.2 got conducted the operation of the left eye on 07.02.2018 but there was no relief found by the complainant in his left eye and the said problem on the left eye remained and the complain ant again visited to opposite party No.2 and cheeked his left eye by opposite party NO.2, but the opposite party No.2 again advised to complainant to sue medicines and problem of the said left eyes would be finished within one and half months and on the advise of opposite party No.2, the complainant properly used medicines within one and half month, but there was no relief to the complainant in his left eye and the said problem remained in his left eye.  The complainant again visited to opposite party No.2 on 19.3.2018 and opposite party No.2 checked the eye of the complainant and after checking the said eye, opposite party No.2 advised to the complainant to get re-operated the said eye and on the advise of the opposite party, the complainant was ready to get re-operate his eye and opposite party No.2 conducted the said operation, despite of that there was no relief to the complainant and after that the complainant again visited to opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 stitches in left eye of the complainant, due to which the complainant had no proper/clear vision in his left eye and was unable to see any things clearly and opposite party No.2 had also issued a case summary dated 10.04.2018 on opposite party’s letter head by duly attesting through Dr. Lucky Kharbanda MBBS M.S (Opthalmogy).  The complainant had spent an amount of Rs.60,000/- approximately on the said operations and medicines, despite of that the complainant had no relief.  The complainant sent legal notice  dated 01.05.2018 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- due to negligence of the opposite parties alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.

b)                 pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . and pecuniary loss as well as litigation charges.

2.                Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  no specific, scientific and justified allegations in regard to negligence or deficiency in providing services had  been made by the complainant against the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and the complainant had totally failed to explain “as to how he was involved and opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 were negligent”, hence the complainant was miserably failing to explain the cause of action.  The complainant  had filed this complaint with false allegations of negligence to the Hon’ble Forum by claiming exorbitant amounts without any basis, just to waste the valuable time, harass and defame the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.  Although it was a fact that the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 had not committed any negligence in this case, while providing the said treatment.  The complainant was bad for non-arraignment and mis-arraignment of parties.  Opposite party  No.1 was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.” Through its Professional Indemnity (Error and Omission) policy No. 272200/48/2018/1930 effective from 26.4.2017 to 25.04.2018 and the opposite party No.2 insured with Oriental India Insurance company Ltd., through its professional indemnity (doctor) policy No. 272200/48/2018/11901 effective 06.09.2017 to 05.09.2018.

 Patient Sukhveer Singh Rawat visited in OPD of opposite party No.1.  Goyal hospital with complaint of diminution of vision.  On examination he was found to have cataract with compensated retina, so he was advised for cataract surgery and IOL implant in his right eye.  No guarantee warrantee or any assurance was ever given to the patient party.  The surgery was performed diligently prudently with due care and caution.  After this first surgery, the patient was well with glasses, but the patient was not tolerating the glasses prescribed and hence in his request, the  second surgery was planned and performed after explaining the prognosis and possible complications and also expectations from the surgery.  Prior to the surgery the treating doctors did a detailed work up free of cost including pentacam and by mutual consent IOL Exchange was performed on 03.04.2018.  After that patient lost to follow up which was the sole negligence of the patient himself.  Everything the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 had done was  diligently, prudently, with utmost due care and caution in treating the said patient.Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Opposite party No.3  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the  present complaint was premature one as the complainant and opposite party No.1  never applied with opposite party No.3 for settling the claim from the answering opposite party.  The complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint.  Opposite party No.3 had issued professional indemnity bearing policy NO. 272200/48/2018/1930 valid from 26.04.2017 to 25.04.2018 in the name of M/s. Goyal Hospital and liable for claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Opposite party No. 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6                 In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Goyal Hospital Nursing Home with the prayer to: a)  pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- due to negligence of the opposite parties alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. b)          pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment  and pecuniary loss as well as litigation charges.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence affidavit of  Sukhvir Singh S/o Shri deep Chand @ Deepa, Ex.C1 – OPD card of Goyal Hospital, Ex.C-2  to 43– prescription of Drishti Eye Centre,  Ex.C-4 – Case summary of Sukhbeer Singh,, Ex. C-5 – legal notice,, Ex.C-6 – postal receipt,, Ex.C-7 – legal notice,, Ex.C-8 – postal receipt,

On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly

agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1,  Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Dr. Kulbhushan Bhatia, proprietor/Director,, insurance policy, from 26.04.2017 to 25.04.2018,, insurance policy from 06.09.2017 ro 05.09.2018, insurance policy 28.04.2017 to 25.4.2018, Certificates..

As per evidence of opposite party No.2  Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of Dr.

Lucky Kharbanda, insurance policy from 06.09.2017 to 05.09.2018,

                   As per evidence of opposite party No3 Ex.DW-1/A – affidavit of Shri Anil Nagpal, Oriental Insurance co. Ltd., Faridabad., Ex.D-1 – insurance policy valid from 26.04.2017 to 25.04.2018.

7.                Counsel for the complainant has filed an application on 25.01.2022 for issuing direction to CMO of B.K.H. to constitute the board to examination/inspect of eye of the complainant/applicant.

 8.               After going through the evidence led by the parties ,the Commission is of the opinion that on the application of the complainant, The Civil Surgeon, Chief Medical Officer,  Faridabad was directed to constitute a board of doctors to give report on the basis of papers submitted by the complainant due to negligence of Goyal Nursing Home/Hospital Home & Ors.. A Medical Board comprising Dr. Sangeeta Goel. MO, District Civil Hospital, . Dr. Angshpriya, MO, District Civil Hospital, Faridabad, Dr. Atul Aggarwal, NIMA President, Dr. Dinesh Gupta, IMA President, Dr. Vikas Goel, SMO, Nominee of PMO, District Civil Hospital. Faridabad. & Dr. Sushil Kumar Ahlawat, Dy. C.S. Nominee of Civil Surgeon O/o Civil Surgeon, Faridabad was constituted and said Medical Board submitted its report vide letter No. 2022/900 dated 20.07.2022. Enquiry members are of the opinion that  “no medical negligence  has been found against Drishti Eye Centre and Goyal Hospital, Faridabad, as the patient was operated after explaining guarded visual prognosis and after taking consent.  Glasses were prescribed for post operative correction of vision.  Second surgery was done after taking consent and under guarded visual prognosis. Patient did not turn up for follow up.”

9.                The complainant has also not led any cogent evidence to prove the factum that doctors of opposite parties hospital were negligent and careless in treating the complainant. On the basis of opinion of medical board and in the absence of any cogent evidence merely on the basis of presumption, it cannot be deemed that there was any negligence or carelessness or deficient service on the part of opposite parties.

10.              As such, neither any deficiency in service nor medical negligence on the part of opposite parties is proved in the present complaint.

11.              Resultantly, the present complaint is meritless and the same is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 26.08.2022                                  (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.