BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 34 of 2015
Date of Institution : 12.2.2015
Date of decision : 29.4.2016
- Meera Devi widow of Late Sh.Mahavir son of Nyola Ram,
- Geeta d/o late Sh.Mahavir,
…both residents of village Nangloi, Budh Market, Delhi, now r/o Mandi Dabwali distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector-2, Rohini Delhi-85 through its Prop/Partner/Auth.person.
2. Dr.Parineeta Nodal Officer, Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector-2, Rohini Delhi-85.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SH.RAJIV MEHTA………….. ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.S.K.Kangra, Manager, Admn. On behalf of opposite parties.
(Opposite parties already exparte vide order dt. 8.2.2016).
ORDER
In brief, facts of the present case are that husband of complainant namely Mahavir was suffering from heart ailment and he went to B.S.A. hospital Rohini, New Delhi where Dr.J.P.Palyia examined him and suggested the immediate heart operation. Due to his poor condition, Dr.Palyia did not operate him and referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector-2 Rohini, Delhi-85 on 13.10.2014 for immediate operation as he was entitled to free treatment as per the judgment of Hon’ble High Court dt. 22.3.2007 in WP© No.2866/2002 and order of Hon’ble Apex Court dt. 1.9.2011. The husband of complainant visited the hospital i.e. opposite party no.1, but he refused to admit and operate him. He again visited Dr.Paliya, who again referred him on 21.10.2014 with the remarks that said hospital is liable to operate the patient as the Govt. provides Aid to the said hospital for providing free treatment. Thereafter, Op no.2 examined the husband of complainant and also got all the tests conducted and after examining all the report, he was taken to the operation theatre for heart operation. Then the Op no.2 demanded Rs.2.5 lacs for said operation and stated that she would not operate until full money is not received for operation. The complainant, his daughter and husband requested op no.2 several times to operate the patient free of cost, but she did not pay any heed. Ultimately, when the complainant and his daughter were coming back to Dabwali, then on the way, due to critical condition, her husband died due to negligence and carelessness of op no. 2. Hence, the present complaint
for compensation Rs.15,00,000/- besides litigation expenses etc..
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared the contested the case by pleading that husband of complainant neither got admitted in the hospital of Op no.1 nor operated upon by its doctors. However, it is submitted that complainant visited op no.1 and was given an advised for CABG. He was told that Cardio Vascular Surgeon is not available in the hospital. Further, it is pleaded by Ops that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as per Section11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date because this Consumer Forum, Sirsa has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Rest of the averments of complaint are denied.
3. In order to make out her case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-her own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-supporting affidavit of her daughter; Ex.C3-copy of Referral Proforma; Ex.C4-affidavit/undertaking given by the patient Mahavir; Ex.C5- Referral Proforma issued by Op no.2 dt. 21.10.2014; Ex.C6-again affidavit/undertaking given by Mahavir; Ex.C7 and Ex.C8-OPD Cards; Ex.C9 to Ex.C11-receipts; Ex.C12-copy of death certificate and Ex.C13-notice; whereas, Ops have tendered in evidence Ex.R1-affidavit of Dr.Khushali Ratra, Medical Superintendent of Op no.1.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of final arguments, Ops proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 8.2.2016. However, on 27.4.2016, Sh.S.K.Kangra, Manager Admin. appeared in the Forum on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the written arguments placed on record on 13.1.2016.
6. Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as they failed to treat the patient. On the other hand, Sh.S.K.Kangra, Manager on behalf of Ops argued that patient Mahavir was not admitted in their hospital as his heart operation was to be done and the Cardio Surgeon was not available in the hospital. He denied all the other allegations of complainant. He further argued that patient Mahavir left the hospital on 22.10.2014 and died on 8.11.2014 at Dabwali as per his death certificate Ex.C12. He died after about 16 days of his return from the hospital at Delhi. As the patient was not operated in the hospital of Opposite parties, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Moreover, the District Forum at Sirsa is having no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Keeping in view the abovesaid arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is force in the contention of Sh.S.K.Kangra, Manager of opposite parties. There is absolutely nothing to prove or to presume any medical or any other negligence on the part of the doctor. Moreover, as per Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint because the opposite parties in the present complaint are having their business i.e. hospital at Delhi and they do not reside or carry on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain at Sirsa.
8. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs. However, as per the provisions of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court given in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II(1995) CPJ (SC), 583, the time spent by the complainant before this Forum in these proceedings may be set off by the appropriate authority/court. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:29.4.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
