BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No.159 of 2014 Date of Institution: 11.4.2014
Date of Decision: 19.2.2015
Mahavir Parshad son of Birbal Ram, resident of Kheo Wali Dhab, Tehsil and District Fazilka.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Gupta Nursing Home, Fazilka, through Dr. Ramesh Gupta.
2. Sumitra Medicos, Inside Gupta Nursing Home, Fazilka, through Anil Kumar.
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, 42 C, 3rd Floor, Mool Chand Commercial Complex, New Delhi, through its authorized signatory.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Parminderdeep Singh, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh. M.L. Chug, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant met with an accident on 16.9.2013 at Bus Stand of Village Beghan Wali, Abohar
C.C. No.159 of 2014 \\2//
Road. In the accident, the left leg/knee of the complainant got injured and after the accident, the complainant was taken to opposite party No.1 on 16.9.2013, where he was admitted for treatment. Opposite party No.1, before giving treatment to the complainant, got deposited Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. Opposite party No.1 told the complainant to purchase medicines from opposite party No.2. Accordingly, the complainant purchased the medicines from opposite party No.2 and cost of the medicines was Rs.6700/-. Regarding the payment, only Rs.2760/- were mentioned on the backside of the bill. Opposite party No.1 also got a bottle of blood from Civil Hospital, Fazilka for the treatment, which remained unused. Further it has been pleaded that at the time of treatment, opposite party No.1 for its own convenience had called an expert doctor namely Vijay Arora from Civil Hospital, Fazilka. The said doctor stated that there was lot of blood loss of the complainant and so he has to be sent to a better hospital somewhere else. Opposite party No.1 then put bandages on the injuries of the complainant, but the bleeding did not stop from the injuries of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 then told that that rest of the treatment will be meted out to the complainant on the next day. Due to deterioration in health of the complainant and danger to his life as well as due to negligence of opposite party No.1, the complainant then went to Dr. Rinwa Hospital, Ganganagar. The complainant was treated at the said
C.C. No.159 of 2014 \\3//
hospital for a long period and still he is being treated from the said hospital. Further it has been pleaded that in the mid of February 2014, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and told him that he had not treated the complainant. The complainant further told him that the medicines, which were purchased by him from opposite party No.2 on the saying of opposite party No.1, were also not used at any stage. The complainant asked opposite party No.1 to refund him the amount of Rs.10,000/- which he had deposited for treatment in advance and and also to refund the price of the medicines. Opposite party No.1 flatly refused to refund any money to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant also sent a legal notice to opposite party through his counsel on 24.3.2014, but the opposite party has neither given any reply to aforesaid notice nor refunded the aforesaid amount. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund Rs.10,000/- deposited as advance for treatment along with Rs.6700/- as price of medicines. Further a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.7000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their respective written replies to the complaint. In his written reply, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the complainant has not produced any expert
C.C. No.159 of 2014 \\4//
opinion of any competent doctor/medical board. Complainant Mahavir Prashad visited opposite party No.1 hospital on 16.9.2013 at 07:30 P.M with the complaint of accidental injuries. The left leg of the complainant was fractured and there was profuse bleeding from the left leg and the complainant was in shock. BP and radial pulse of the complainant were not recordable and thereafter the complainant was immediately taken in I.C.U. The complainant’s wounds were stitched, drip was started, one unit of blood, which was brought from blood bank of Civil Hospital, Fazilka, was transfused immediately and plaster slab was applied to the left leg. After three hours of emergency measures, the condition of the complainant became stable. Thereafter, the complainant was advised for further surgery of the fractured part by an Ortho Surgeon. The complainant himself expressed his desire to consult Dr. Suresh Rinwa, Ortho Surgeon at Sri Ganganagar. The complainant was accordingly shifted and was accompanied by opposite party No.1 along with his staff. At the time of shifting, the complainant was in a stable condition. The complainant was treated with due care and diligence and as per the set medical standards. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. In its written reply, opposite party No. 2 has pleaded that the two persons namely Mahavir Parshad son of Balram and the complainant
C.C. No.159 of 2014 \\5//
were admitted in the hospital and both of them were treated. The total bill of medicines of both the patients was of Rs.6700/- and the bill of the complainant was Rs.2700/- and that too was charged from him. Bill of Rs.4000/- was charged from attendant of injured other person Mahavir Parshad son of Balram. Opposite party No.2 has only charged the bill of Rs.2700/- from the attendent of the complainant and as such there was no question to refund the same. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. Opposite party No.3 has also filed its written reply on the lines of the written replies filed by opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 2 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-1 & 2/1 to Ex.OP-1 & 2/10 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. Similarly, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-3/1 and Ex.OP-3/2 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
7. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of
C.C. No.159 of 2014 \\6//
opposite party No.1, on the allegations that the complainant was got admitted in the hospital of opposite party No.1 on 16.9.2013 for treatment of his left leg/knee injured in an accident and before giving treatment to the complainant, opposite party No.1 got deposited Rs.10,000/- from the complainant; on the prescription/direction of opposite party No.1, the complainant purchased medicines of Rs.6700/- from opposite party No.2 and thereafter due to not giving proper treatment by opposite party No.1, the complainant had to approach Rinwa Hospial, Ganganagar for his treatment, but opposite party No.1 has not refunded the amount Rs.10,000/-, which was deposited by the complainant for his treatment in advance and opposite party No.1 has also refused to refund the price of the medicines, which remained unused. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has specifically denied that opposite party No.1 before giving treatment to the complainant got deposited Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and told him to purchase the medicines from opposite party No.2. No receipt regarding deposit of the alleged amount of Rs.10,000/- has been placed on the file by the complainant. It is also not the case of the complainant that opposite party No.1 did not issue any receipt regarding the alleged deposit of Rs.10,000/- or refused to issue any receipt in this regard. At the time of preliminary hearing of the present complaint, only pleadings of the complainant supported by his duly sworn affidavit were before this Forum.
C.C. No.159 of 2014 \\7//
After specific denial of opposite party No.1 regarding alleged deposit of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant with opposite party No.1, the onus was upon the complainant to prove that he had paid Rs.10,000/- to opposite party No.1 for his treatment, but he has failed to discharge this duty by leading any cogent and convincing evidence in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be held that the services of opposite party No.1 were hired by the complainant for any valuable consideration and consequently the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer of opposite party No.1, as provided under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed on this ground alone without going into its merits with liberty to the complainant to seek redressal of the present dispute before any other Court/Forum having jurisdiction to decide the present dispute, if so advised. The time consumed in persuasion of the present complaint will be excluded for the purpose of limitation, if the complainant approaches any other Court/Forum for redressal of the present dispute. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
19.2.2015
(Gurpartap Singh Brar) President
(Gyan Singh) Member
