Delhi

North East

CC/15/2020

Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Janta Piles Clinic - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.15/20

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal S/o Lt. Shri. Moti Lal R/o 169-170, Gali No. 1, Chanderlok, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.           3.	Janta Piles Clinic, Near Petrol Pump, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053   Dr. Vijay Tripathi, B.A. M.S. Regd. No. 46653(U.P) Partner, Janta Piles Clinic, Near Petrol Pump, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053   Dr. S.K Gaur, G.A.M.S.A.V.A Regd. No. 8373 DRCP, Proctologist, Partner Janta Piles Clinic, Near Petrol Pump, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:

30.01.2020 20.10.2022 17.03.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

                                                                 ORDER

     Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 1.07.2018, the complainant along with his son went to the Opposite Party No. 1 for his treatment of Piles problem. Opposite Party No. 2 was present inside the clinic. The clerk of the Opposite Party issued a receipt no. 4516 dated 01.07.2018 against payment of Rs. 200/-. Then the complainant met with Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 2 made the demand of Rs. 31,000/- for the complete treatment of piles. On 01.07.2018, Opposite Party No. 2 took Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant. Then the Opposite Party No. 2 attended the complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 advised the complainant that he would immediately operate the piles by Laser Machine. After making the payment of Rs. 20,000/- the Opposite Party No. 2 made the operation of the piles of the complainant. The Opposite Party No. 2 assured the complainant that he would be completely cured from the Piles problem throughout his life. On 01.07.2018 the complainant came back his homes and feeling severe pain and very inconvenience. The complainant made the telephone call to Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 advised the complainant to come again at the clinic on 02.07.2018. On 02.07.2018, as per advice of the Opposite Party No. 2, the complainant along with his son went to Opposite Party No. 1, where the complainant met Opposite Party No. 3. Then the Opposite Party No. 3 again made the demand for the balance amount i.e Rs. 11,000/-. The complainant paid Rs. 11,000/- to Opposite Party No. 3. After received the payment, Opposite Party No. 3 again made the operation of the piles and he provided two injunctions in the lower part of the complainant. In spite of the second time operation/surgery of the piles, the complainant suffered severe pain and continuous bleeding was coming. The complainant again made the telephone call to Opposite Party No. 1 and the call was received by the Opposite Party No. 3. Opposite Party No. 3 assured the complainant that the complainant would be fully cured within four/five days. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 3 made the telephone call to the complainant and stated that he required Rs. 20,000/- more for further treatment of the complainant for removing extra skin over the piles. The complainant raised the objection for the same. Opposite Party No. 3 stated to the complainant that he was having old piles and the same were required again operation. Hence, Opposite Parties by befooling the complainant received Rs. 31,200/-. Thereafter the complainant inquired about the registration of Opposite Party No. 1 and got the information that there is no registration of Opposite Party No. 1 or the doctors and Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 are not the doctors by profession and they are Jhola Chhap. On 14.07.2018, the complainant rushed to Goel Piles Care Centre and at that time there was bleedings and pain the piles. The complainant’s condition was very worse. The doctor of the Goel Piles Care Centre stated that due to wrong treatment and wrong surgery as made by the Opposite Parties there was infections in the piles. Due to infection problem, the condition of the complainant became very worse. The complainant got the treatment from Goel Piles Centre and was cured.  Due to wrong treatment as made by the Opposite parties, a new problem was created before the complainant i.e. Prostate Problem. On 21.09.2018, the complainant was admitted in Apollo Spectra and he was operated for prostate on 22.09.2018.  On 23.09.2018, the complainant was discharged and complainant had no problem of prostate or urology. The Complainant spent more than Rs. 6,00,000/- on the treatment & medicines etc. and complainant suffered financial loss of earning from his profession worth Rs. 2,00,000/- in two months. The complainant is claiming Rs. 4,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony. The Complainant paid Rs. 31,200/- to Opposite Parties. Hence, the Complainant is claiming in the present complaint for Rs. 12,31,200/- towards compensation. The complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs. 12,31,200/- jointly or severally along with 12 % p.a and Rs. 55,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 23.03.2022.

Ex-parte evidence of the Complainants

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Counsel for the Complainant and we have also perused the file.  The case of the Complainant is that he went to Opposite Party No. 1 for the treatment of piles problem and he paid Rs. 31,200/- for the complete treatment of piles. It is further submitted by the Complainant that Opposite Party No. 2 operated upon the Complainant for treatment of piles with the assurance that he would be completely cured from the piles problem throughout his life. According to the Complainant, after operation he did not get any relief from the pain and felt very inconvenient. Opposite Party No. 3 again operated upon the Complainant for piles but he did not get any relief from pain and inconvenience. Thereafter, the Complainant made enquires about the registration of the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 and found that they are not doctors by profession. After that the Complainant rush to the other doctors i.e. Goel Piles Care Centre for treatment of his problem. After treatment by the Goel Piles Care Centre, he was cured. It is alleged by the Complainant that due to wrong treatment by the Opposite Parties he suffered with new problem i.e. prostate and for that he was admitted to Apollo Spectra and operated upon and completely healed from the problem of prostate. Complainant alleged that there is deficiency on part of the Opposite Parties.
5. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties before the Commission to contest the case. Hence, Opposite Parties were proceeded against ex-parte. As per documents filed by the Complainant from Limra Law Firm representing Opposite Parties, a legal notice was issued to the Complainant on 02.08.2018 in which it was admitted that the Complainant was charged for Rs. 31,200/- for the treatment of the piles and it was also admitted by the Limra Law Firm that their client i.e. Opposite Parties are not practicing allopathy but they are practicing ayurveda and for that they are registered with Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad.
6. As per section 2 (11 (II)) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 which is reads as under :-

“deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-

1.  

(ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer

7. It is admitted by the representative of the Opposite Parties that Complainant was treated by his client and they charged for Rs. 31,200/- and it was further admitted by them that they are not allopathic doctors. As per receipt issue by the Opposite Party No. 1 and prescriptions slip issued by the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3, there is nowhere mentioned that they are not allopathic doctors and they gave ayurvedic treatment to the complainant. Further these documents do not show that they were registered with Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. Hence, the case is covered under 2 (11(II)) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant did not led any evidence regarding further medical problem i.e. prostate occurred due to wrong treatment of piles by the Opposite Parties and also  did not submit any medical bills in this regard.  Complainant also did not submit any documents for loss of income due to confinement to bed for two months because of wrong treatment by the Opposite Parties.
8. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs. 31,200/- jointly or severally to the complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Parties also directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-  jointly or severally to the complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.
9. Order announced on 17.03.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President