Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No.1700 of 2008

Ramanuj Singh s/o Ranvijay Singh,

R/o Village Ojhauli, Post, Pichari,

Distt. Azamgarh.                                                  …Appellant.                                                                         

Gupta Sonography Centre X-ray & Pathology,

Asifganj, Old Kotawali, Distt. Azamgarh

Dr. Mohamad Khalid (M.D.), Radiodignosis,

Consultant, Radiologist.                              ….…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate for appellant.

Sri T.H. Naqvi, Advocate for the respondent.

Date    27.9.2021

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 4.8.2008 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Azamgarh in complaint case no.84 of 2006.

          In short, the facts of the case are that the appellant’s wife was suffering some stomach problem hence she consulted to Dr. M.Z. Siddiqui who advised her to go for Ultrasonography of the abdomen and pelvic region. On 11.2.2002 the appellant with his wife went to respondent and did her wife’s ultrasonography on payment of usual charges.  On the basis of utrasonography the doctor advised for operation. On the advice of doctor the appellant consulted  Dr. R.C. Gupta who conducted the operation and treatment and as such removed her left ovary. For follow up action he was advised for another sonography. On 2.6.2002 the

(2)

appellant again consulted the respondent who conducted another sonography in which it has been verified that left ovary has been removed.

After several months treatment she did not get any rlief and again the appellant consulted the doctor who advised to undergo another sonography. The appellant went to the respondent on 14.5.2006 and got the sonography done after payment of usual charges. In this report  the respondent wrote “Both ovaries normal in size and architectural. No adnexal mass or pelvic connection seen.” It was opined “right ureteric calculus causing mild hydronephrosis.” The appellant  shocked to see this report because this report has revealed that  both ovaries are normal.

The appellant went to Agarwal Hospital, Allahabad and Moti Lal Nehru District Hospital, Allahabad who confirmed the removed of ovary due to the wrong report given by respondent. Due to respondent’s negligence and giving false report of sonography, the appellant’s wife ovary has been removed and she became incapable of conceiving. Thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint case before the ld. District Forum. The opposite party appeared there and filed its written statement in which the objection is raised that the appellant’s wife is consumer and has not made a party to the complaint case. The appellant moved an application for impleadment of this wife but  the Ld. District Forum illegally dismissed the application through order dated 14.3.2008.

The appellant has filed his affidavit supported with his wife’s affidavit and argued the matter but the ld. District Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint on the basis of

(3)

technical ground. This order is arbitrary and lacks the application of mind. The judgment is based on conjectures and surmises and the ld. District Forum wrongly relied on the false version of the respondent/opposite party.  The appellant  and his wife are sufferer. The ld. District Forum did not consider the aspect that  in Indian culture it is father who looks after his wife and children. Hence it is humbly prayed that the appeal  be allowed and the impugned and order dated 4.8.2008 be set aside.

          We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri Anil Kumar Mishra and ld. Counsel for the respondent Sri T.H. Naqvi and perused all the pleadings, documents on record.

          We have seen the impugned judgment of the Ld. District Forum. The ld. District Forum has said that the complaint has not been filed by the wife of the complainant because she is the sufferer and aggrieved party and only on this ground the ld. District Forum has held that the complaint is not maintainable and dismissed the same.

We have considered the aspect and it is very much clear that in Indian culture husband takes care of his wife and children. If any case is filed against a woman who is illiterate or Pardanasheen, the suit is being filed through guardian. In this case the wife is direct sufferer but the husband is also a sufferer as his wife could not conceive in future so the complaint case filed by the husband cannot be said non-maintainable on the ground that his wife has not been made a party. In this respect the finding of the ld. District Forum is not according to law.

(4)

Now, we have seen the report of ultrasonography dated 11.2.2002 which says that “Right ovary is normal in size. Solid hypoechoic mass of about 68x55 mm. Size seen in left adnexal region. No pelvic collection see.”

The next sonography report is of 2.6.2002 in which it has been reported regarding ovary that “Right ovary is normal in size & architecture. Left  ovary  could not be seen. No adnexal mass or pelvic collection seen.”

Next sonography report is lof 14.5.2006 in which it has been written that “Both ovaries are normal in size & architecture. No adnexal mass or pelvic collection seen.”

All the three sonography reports are of the respondent Gupta Sonography Centre X-ray & Pathology and the concerned doctor’s name printed on the report is Dr. Mohd. Khalid, MD(Radio Diagnosis). These three reports are very important in this respect as we have seen in the third reported dated 14.5.2006 for both ovaries are normal in size and architecture, it means on 14.5.2006 both the ovaries were present. 

We have seen the judgment of the ld. District Forum and did not find any paper mentioned therein regarding operation and removal of the ovary. As per report dated 14.5.2006 both ovaries were found normal in size. Thereafter, if there is inconsistency of various reports of sonography Centre, the complainant should have got another sonography from any other centre so that it should have been confirmed whether his wife have both the ovaries or not but no such independent sonography report has been filed.

As far as the report of Gupta Sonography Centre is

(5)

concerned, it is clear that they did their work negligently, carelessly and it shows clear deficiency in service by them. The complaint has been filed against Gupta Sonography Centre and Dr. Mohd. Khalid who is the main doctor or proprietor of the Gupta Sonography Centre so he is liable for giving different report. It has been said that the complainant did not prove the fact that all the 3 time his wife was presented for sonography. It is ridiculous. Is there any enmity between Gupta Sonography Centre and complainant ? Why will the complainant  do such things. In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that the opposite parties have failed to establish the fact that it was not Smt. Renu Singh all the three times. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant has a right to file the complaint case on behalf of his wife and the opposite parties are guilty of showing carelessness and deficiency in service. As there is no proof of removal of the ovary, therefore, we are of the opinion that a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000.00 is to be imposed on the opposite parties with simple rate of interest @ 6% p.a. payable from the date of judgment of the complaint case i.e. 4.8.2008. The appeal is liable to be allowed partially and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed partially and the impugned judgment and order dated 4.8.2008 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Azamgarh in complaint case no.84 of 2006 is set aside.

 The respondents no.1 & 2/Opposite parties no.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.50,000.00 as damaged/compensation

(6)

with simple interest @ 6%  p.a. payable from 4.8.2008 till the final payment. They are also directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of judgment of this appeal otherwise they will have to pay interest @ 9% p.a.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 2