The present complaint has been filed by Balkar Singh complainant after the sad demise of his minor grandson Gurnoor Singh allegedly on account of improper and callous medical-treatment as meted out to him at the hands of the titled opposite parties. We find that the complainant has alleged some very serious and grave unethical misconduct upon the OP Hospital & its office-bearer doctors who however have endeavored to clarify all these through their well-explained written reply accompanied by the evidentiary documents of acceptable legal value.          

2.       At the very outright, we observe that the titled opposite parties are based/situated at Amritsar and all reside/work for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of Amritsar and further the reported ‘cause of action’ in full has taken place at Amritsar thus the courts at Gurdaspur shall be lacking in ‘territorial-jurisdiction’ to entertain and put on trial the present complaint. Further, we find that the herein opposite parties here did not acquiesce to the forum’s ‘territorial-jurisdiction’ since the issue was duly raised in the ‘written-reply’ although no separate formal request for dismissal of complaint was filed.

3.       As has been requisite, the complainant did not even file any evidentiary document in support of the ‘territorial-jurisdiction’ issue that need to be decided first without going further into the ‘merits’ of the complaint. Thus, the present complaint has been liable to be dismissed on the lone count of ‘territorial-issue’ of jurisdiction, only.                                                                                

4.       To top it all, the present complainant has preferred to stay ‘absent’ during the last ‘four’ hearings fixed for final arguments (oral as well as written) giving rise to the ‘judicial-presumption’ that he has been no longer interested to prosecute the present complaint. Thus, the present complaint is also liable to be dismissed on the count of ‘lack of prosecution’ alone.                                       

5.       We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the opposite party participating litigants along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some documents vital for the present adjudication in spite of the ample opportunity granted/ made available for the purpose.                                                  

6.       Coming to merits-side of the complaint, we observe that the complainant has not only failed to produce (on records) some cogent evidence but even an otherwise acceptable documentary evidence of legal value so as to prove his allegations (Affidavit Ex.Cw1) as put forth in the present complaint along with that on the issue of territorial jurisdiction. Somehow, he has based his allegations on layman’s interpretation(s) of the OP’s medical treatment/medicine prescriptions (Ex.C1 to Ex.C52) that are somewhat deviated/imbalanced in their present form/version; even otherwise he has failed to prove any statutory ‘deficiency in service’ on the OP’s part even vide the records-assistance of second treatment/surgery and medical treatment at the other Hospital at Amritsar; who did not find/mention any failings in the medical-treatment as meted out at the OP Hospital, at the hands of the OP Doctors and has filed the present complaint but somehow, could not establish any statutory deficiency in the OP’s treatment so as to have a favorable award, under the adjudicating Act.                                          

7.       We further find and are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his allegations/charges against the OP Doctors/ Hospital for any ulterior motives etc but here the OP Doctors have established to have given/provided the best treatment as available with them. All the exhibited evidentiary documents do indicate of one ‘serious and grave’ unfortunate ailment to the patient that could not be ultimately cured.                                  

8.       Moreover, It has always been the complainant’s own discretion to have a medical treatment of his choice and he was thus justifiably discharged under LAMA (Left against Medical Advice) by the OP Hospital. It also does not stand in any way proved that the opinion/treatment as put forth by the opposite parties (here) has been medically ‘wrong and incorrect’. These different opinions are not ‘unwarranted’ so long as these do not drift away from the known and acceptable medical science. Lastly, we find the deposition(s) and document(s) as submitted by the opposite party doctors to be quite true, genuine & bonafide and thus accept these as admissible on records. We are also convinced with the OP’s plea that going by the medical precautionary custom and practice the present medical treatment was provided to the complainant.                    

9.       Finally, in the light of the all above, we do not see any actionable statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal, with however, no orders as to its costs.                                                                  

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

  (Naveen Puri)

      President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

JULY 18, 2018.                                                                             Member                    

*YP*