DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 34 of 25-01-2010

Decided on : 08-03-2011

Tarsem Lal Goyal, Advocate S/o Sh. Mehar Chand Goyal aged about 60 years R/o 211, Veer Colony, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Gupta Hospital, Bone & Joint Hospital, Power House Road, Bathinda through its authorised signatory

2. Dr. Amrit Gupta of Gupta Hospital Bone & Joint Hospital, Power House Road, Bathinda.

3. Rahul Bhagi S/o Sh. Harinder Pal Bhagi R/o # 13689 Street No. 3, Ganesh Nagar, Bathinda now posted and working at Office of HDFC Bank, Rampura Branch, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. (Deleted vide order dated 8-4-2010).

.... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Tarsem Lal, complainant in person

For the Opposite parties : Sh. S.K. Singla, counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he met with on accident on 28-05-2009 with Royal Enfield Motor Cycle No. PB-11A/E-7293 driven by opposite party No. 3, while crossing the G.T. Road near old Wadi Street, Bathinda. Due to accident, the right leg of the complainant suffered multiple fractures. The complainant got admitted by someone in the hospital of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and the doctors of opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant to cure the complainant and to charge reasonable charges. The doctor was duly informed that the complainant suffered injuries due to negligent and rash driving of opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 2 with the connivance and criminal conspiracy with opposite party no. 3 did not inform the police authority. The doctor of opposite party No. 2 though was legally bound to show the admission of the complainant in his hospital record. The complainant remained admitted in the hospital from 28-05-2009 till 31-05-2009 and during that period many relatives and friends visited the complainant to know about his well being and for necessary help. The opposite party No. 2 claimed Rs. 65,144/- being the operation fee and treatment charges which included medicine expenses and hospital charges, but the complainant settled the matter at Rs. 60,000/- claiming the bills and he was assured that bills would be given after showing the amount in his account book. On 5-6-2009, the complainant visited opposite party No. 1 & 2 for removal of stitches and on 30-08-2009 for X-ray of the right leg. Thereafter the complainant kept on visiting the opposite party No. 1 & 2 and requested opposite party No. 2 for issuance of the bills for filing the claim petition under Motor Vehicle's Act against the opposite party No. 3, but he delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, opposite party No. 2 refused to issue the bills. The complainant alleged that he has suffered loss of about Rs. 5,00,000/- on different accounts. Hence, this complaint.

2. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed their written reply and pleaded that opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have no interaction with opposite party No. 3. It was never disclosed by the complainant or his attendants that the complainant has met with motor vehicle accident with some third person, rather it was informed that he had fell down on the road and the complainant being an advocate was himself aware of the fact as to whether he wanted to inform the police in those circumstances or not. Neither the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 were asked to inform the police nor they had undertaken to inform the police. It has been specifically denied that opposite party No. 2 had demanded Rs. 65,144/- as operation, treatment charges and medical expenses etc. In fact a sum of Rs. 16,500/- were claimed from the complainant in all but only a sum of Rs. 11,500/- was paid by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- still remains unpaid. The complainant did not show his intention to the opposite parties that he wanted to file any claim petition under M.V. Act. It has been specifically denied that complainant is entitled to recover any amount from the complainant.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The complainant has submitted that he met with an accident with Royal Enfield Motor Cycle No. PB-11A/E-7293 driven by opposite party No. 3 and in the said accident, his right leg was fractured with multiple grievous injuries. The complainant was got admitted by someone in the hospital of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and he informed the doctor that the injuries were occurred to the complainant due to motor accident by opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 2 has neither got the FIR registered nor called the police. The opposite party No. 2 was legally bound to show the admission of the complainant in his hospital record but he in connivance with opposite party No. 3 did not do so. The complainant submitted that a separate criminal complaint is being filed before the CJM, Bathinda. He remained admitted in the hospital from 28-05-2009 till 31-05-2009. The opposite party No. 2 claimed Rs. 65,144/- being the operation fee and treatment charges including medicine expenses and hospital charges etc., but the complainant settled the matter with the doctor at Rs. 60,000/- and paid the same. Thereafter, he approached opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 on 5-6-2009 for the removal of stitches and he paid Rs. 100/- for that and he requested opposite party No. 2 to issue bills as he has to lodge claim petition under Motor Vehicle's Act against opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 2 has taken x-ray of his right leg on 30-08-2009 and charged Rs. 200/- . At that time also, the complainant again requested the opposite party No. 2 to issue the bills. The complainant further submitted that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 1 & 2 as they are not issuing true bills and and receipt Ex. R-3 & Ex. R-4 produced on file are forged and fabricated which were prepared later on. It was mandatory for opposite party No. 2 to get the case lodged in medico legal case and morally and ethically he was also bound to get the case registered. He prayed that he has suffered loss under different head and is entitled for compensation of Rs. 5.00 lacs.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 submitted that on 28-05-2009, the complainant was brought to hospital of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 by Mr. Sat Pal brother of the complainant and another 3-4 persons in fully conscious state with fracture of his right leg bones. After examining the complainant and conducting the X-ray , the opposite party No. 2 explained the complainant and the persons accompanying him that his leg has to be operated upon and approximate charges are Rs. 16,500/-. An advance of Rs. 3500/- was deposited and complainant was operated after admission. He was discharged on 31-05-2009 and Rs. 8,000/- were deposited at the time of discharge and Rs. 5000/- are still pending towards the complainant. The learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 further submitted that at that time, the complainant or any other person accompanying him did not disclose about motor vehicle accident as the cause of his fracture. No person during the admission period desired to go for any medico legal process against any person. Even the complainant did not show any desire for the same. The learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 further submitted that complainant had hired the services of opposite party Nos.1 & 2 for the treatment of fracture of bones of his leg for which the complainant was treated by opposite party No. 2 with full skill and care of the medical profession to the satisfaction of the complainant.

7. At the initial stage, the complainant made Rahul Bhagi as opposite party No. 3 and thereafter on 8-04-2010 the complainant made statement before this Forum that opposite party No. 3 may be deleted from the array of the opposite parties and accordingly, opposite party No. 3 was deleted by this Forum vide order dated 08-04-2010. The said Rahul Bhagi had filed reply after receipt of notice from this Forum and stated that complainant never met with any accident with his motorcycle and the complainant never sustained any injuries on his persons due to his motorcycle.

8. An application dated 22-03-2010 was moved before this Forum by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 for directing the complainant to produce on file the original record and documents and in reply to this application the complainant pleaded that record is not intentionally being produced at this stage. This Forum vide order dated 06-05-2010 allowed the said application of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and directed the complainant to produce the original documents. The complainant filed revision petition No. 48 of 2010 before the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh against the order of this Forum and Hon'ble State Commission disposed of the petition vide order dated 15-10-2010 directing the complainant either to produce photocopy of those documents before this Forum or to show those documents to this Forum for proceeding further in the matter. The complainant tendered some documents on 2-11-2010 and requested adjournment for remaining evidence and the case was adjourned to 11-11-2010. On 11-11-2010, the complainant instead of tendering any document on file made statement that he does not want to file any documents. Thereafter the complainant moved an application before this Forum for striking of defence of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 which was dismissed by this Forum and the complainant filed revision petition No. 63 of 2010 before the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, against the order dated 17-05-2010 of this Forum which was dismissed by the Hon'ble State Commission vide order dated 13-01-2011.

9. The complainant has alleged that it was mandatory for opposite party No. 2 to get the case lodged in medico legal case and morally and ethically he was also bound to get the case registered whereas the version of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 is that the complainant or any other person accompanying him did not disclose about motor vehicle accident as the cause of his fracture. No person during the admission period desired to go for any medico legal process against any person. The complainant has not produced any evidence on file to prove that opposite party nos. 1 & 2 were informed at the time of his admission or during the period the complainant remained admitted in the hospital i.e. opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 that he has suffered fracture due to accident. The complainant filed complaint against opposite party No. 3 before the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Megistrate, Bathinda under Section 279/33 IPC for directing the SHO. P S Kotwali, Bathinda to register and investigate the complaint U/S 156 (3) Cr PC Ex. C-3 and a perusal of documents placed on file by the complainant with this complaint i.e consent letter and indoor case register etc. reveals that nothing has been mentioned on these documents that complainant suffered fracture due to motor accident.

10. The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 2 claimed Rs. 65,144/- being the operation fee and treatment charges which includes medicine, expenses and hospital charges. However, the complainant settled the matter with the doctor for Rs. 60,000/- and the opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that the bills would be given after showing the said amount in his account books. The complainant has utterly failed to prove his this version that opposite party No. 2 claimed Rs. 65,144/- and the matter was settled at Rs. 60,000/-. There is not even a single document on the file to show that opposite party No. 2 charged Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant. The complainant has himself placed on file the complaint filed before the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Megistrate, Bathinda, as discussed above, and in that case opposite party No. 2 appeared before Chief Judicial Megistrate and his statement was recorded which reads as under :-

    “On 28-05-2009 patient Tarsem Chand son of Mehar Chand, aged 60 years, admitted with injuries on his right leg. He was fully conscious at the time of admission. X-ray showed fracture of both bones of his right leg. He was operated under spinal anesthesia and he was fully conscious even during the operation. He was discharged on 31-05-2009. He came for removal of stitches and X-ray control. All X-ray were given to the patient. He was charged Rs. 3500/- on 28-05-2009 and Rs. 8000/- on 31-05-2009. I have brought original record with me today in court. Photocopy duly attested by me is Ex. CW3/A.”

11. The opposite party has also deposed in his affidavit filed before this Forum Ex. R-1 that :-

    “.......that the deponent examined the complainant and told the complainant and his attendants that the complainant will have to be operated upon and for this, Rs. 16,500/- will be the approximate charges.

    That an advance of Rs. 3500/- was deposited with the opposite parties on behalf of the complainant for which a cash receipt bearing No. 4785 dated 28-05-2009 was issued. The complainant was operated on 28-05-2009 by opposite party No. 2 at opposite party No. 1 after making due admission of the complainant as an indoor patient.

    That the complainant was discharged from opposite party No. 2 on 31-05-2009 as the complainant had satisfactorily recovered. An amount of Rs. 8,000/- was deposited at the time of discharge by the complainant for which a receipt bearing No. 4792 dated 31-05-2009 was issued by the opposite parties. The complainant promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- later on, which are still pending towards the complainant.”

    This version of opposite party No. 2 is fully corroborated by the receipts for Rs. 3500/- and Rs. 8,000/- Ex. R-3 & Ex. R-4 respectively.

12. The complainant has produced on file a complaint filed against Rahul Bhaggi i.e. opposite party No. 3 in the month of May, 2010 under Section 279/338 IPC before the Judicial Megistrate, Bathinda for directing the SHO, P S Kotwali, Bathinda to register and investigate the complaint U/S 156 (3) Cr PC., but he has not placed on record any document to show as to whether any direction in this regard was issued by Chief Judicial Megistrate or not.

13. Onus to prove the version in the complaint is upon the complainant himself. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence produced on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence that opposite party No. 2 was ever informed by the complainant that he had suffered fracture due to motor accident or he had paid an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to opposite party No. 2 for the treatment of fractured leg. It being so, version of the complainant on this aspect of the matter has not gone beyond the stage of averment. Thus, we found no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

08-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member