Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/144/2014

Sandeep singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Doctor and hitender suri Rana Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sarabjot singh

21 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                          Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2014

                                                                                                        Date of institution:  28/11/2014               

                                                                                                        Date of decision  :   21.09.2015

Sandeep Singh aged about 29 years son of Joginder Singh, resident of village Kotla Fazil, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

Rana Hospital, near Bholla  Sweets, BDO Office, Sirhind, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Head/Doctor Hitender Suri.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President       

 Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member  

Present :   Sh. P.S.Dhaliwal, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.    

               Pt. Narinder Kumar, Adv.Cl. for the Opposite party.

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                 Complainant, Sandeep Singh, son of Joginder Singh, resident of village Kotla Fazil, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite party(hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) under Section 12  to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainant is suffering from Hemorrhoids/Bleeding Piles for the last some times.  On 02.12.2013 he approached the OP for better treatment and after conducting the diagnosis the OP gave assurance to the complainant that the said disease is curable and he has to undergo operation for the said disease and the OP demanded Rs.18,000/- for operation and other miscellaneous charges for the labs tests etc. The complainant arranged the amount of Rs.18,000/- and deposited the same with OP on the same day. On the same day i.e. 02.12.2013 the operation was conducted by the OP and the complainant was discharged from the hospital on the same day with medicine for the amount of Rs.2,000/- and advised complete bed rest for seven days. After conducting operation the complainant was not fit and suffering from bleeding and he again approached to the OP and disclosed that when he went to stool, he was suffering from bleeding and pain. The doctor gave him medicine and also gave assurance that he will get well soon. But the problem of bleeding was continued. The complainant again visited the hospital of the OP but the concerned doctor put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Lastly, the doctor tried to avoid the complainant and asked him to arrange the amount of Rs.20,000/- for another operation.  Thereafter, on 20.11.2014 the complainant approached the C.H.C. Fatehgarh Sahib,  where the doctor gave opinion that the complainant is suffering from  Hemorrhoids/Bleeding Piles at 3 O’clock and 6 O’clock. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and also amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to pay the amount deposited i.e. Rs.18,000/- and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of causing mental agony.

3.              The complaint is contested by the opposite party. In reply to the complaint the OP stated that the complainant visited the OP hospital on 02.12.2013 and after checkup and tests doctor advised operation as the patient was suffering from Hemorrhoids but the patient did not go for operation and preferred medicines and medicines were prescribed to the patient.  It is further stated that as the operation was not conducted by the OP, the question of depositing Rs.18,000/- does not arise at all. It is further stated that after 02.12.2013 the complainant again visited on 08.12.2013 and again medicines were prescribed and then after two months the complainant again visited the OP and he was advised medicines as per his requirement. Thereafter, the complainant never visited the OP. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.   After denying all the other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence attested copy of prescription slip dated 02.12.2013 Ex. C-1, attested copy of laboratory test report Ex. C-2, attested copy of OPD slip Ex. C-3 and his affidavit Ex. C-4 and  closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP tendered affidavit of Dr. Hitender Suri as Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence.

5.              The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present case is that the OP being a Ayurvedic doctor was not qualified to operate upon the complainant nor was he competent to prescribe allopathic medicines to the complainant as it is evident from the prescription pad i.e Ex-C-1 wherein it is mentioned “Dr.Hatinder Suri B.A.M.S(GoldMedalist)CCKS(I.P.G.T& R.A)Consultant Proctologist (Ayu.)”. The ld. counsel stated that the complainant was operated upon by the OP on 2.12.2013 and was discharged on the same day after payment of Rs.18000/-. The ld. counsel argued that from the act and conduct of the OP it is clearly established, that OP not being competent conducted the operation thereby indulged in unfair trade practice and the complainant deserves to be compensated for the same. The ld. counsel relied on the case law titled as Mayappa Vs. A. Arashimaswamy(Dr.) 2009(2) CLT 148, wherein it has been observed in para no. 17 that, “ From this it is seen that the OP is not an MBBS doctor and he is not qualified to give any allopathic treatment since there is no renewal of licence after the expiry of licence issued earlier. If that is so, the OP being not competent to give treatment has caused damage by injecting an injection on the hip of the complainant which ultimately resulted causing injury to the leg. Therefore, the DF is right in recording the specific finding that there is negligence on the part of the OP in giving the treatment to the complainant. In the said view of the matter the appeal filed by the OP is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed.”

6.              On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has contended that the complainant has not been able to produce any evidence in support of his alleged allegations. The ld.counsel stated that it has been admitted in the written version that complainant had visited the Hospital of the OP and the medicines were prescribed by the competent Doctor working with the Hospital of the OP. He submitted that OP never personally prescribed any treatment to the complainant nor any operation was conducted upon the complainant. The ld. counsel argued that the complainant has failed to place on record any payment receipt, admit card, consent form or discharge summary in order to prove that operation was conducted at the Hospital of the OP. He pleaded that no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice has been proved against the OP or his Hospital and the Ex.C-1 to C-3 do not establish that complainant was operated upon by the OP or any of the doctors working at the Hospital.

7.              After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and evidence produced by them and oral as well as written submissions, we find that Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 do not establish that operation was performed by the OP or any doctor working at the Hospital. Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce any documents i.e payment receipt, admit card, consent form or discharge summary in order to prove that operation was conducted at the Hospital of the OP.

8.               Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the view that no unfair trade practice has been proved by the complainant and the case law cited is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, the signatures on the treatment recommended i.e Ex.C-1 has not been proved and the same could be proved by cross-examination of various witnesses as per the provisions of Evidence Act. Hence, the present complaint is disposed of with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of law, in case he wishes to prove or lead voluminous evidence and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. Parties to bear the cost.

9.              The arguments on the complaint were heard on 09.09.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

    Pronounced

    Dated:21.09.2015

(A.P.S.Rajput)  

      President

    

                                                                                                      (A. B. Aggarwal)

                                                                                                          Member