Delhi

North East

CC/263/2016

SHRI RAJ KUMAR BHARDWAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

JANTA PILES CLINIC - Opp.Party(s)

14 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 263/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Raj Kumar Bhardwaj R/o D-1142, Gali No. 7, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.         3.	Janata Piles Clinic C-35, FF, Near Petrol Pump, Bhajanpura, Wazirabad Road, Delhi 110053   Dr. S.P. Singh Chawla C-35, FF, Near Petrol Pump, Bhajanpura, Wazirabad Road, Delhi 110053   Dr. S.K. Gaur C-35, FF, Near Petrol Pump, Bhajanpura, Wazirabad Road, Delhi 110053	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

18.10.2016 11.05.2018 14.05.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

 

 

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

ORDER

1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he was suffering from Piles and saw advertisements of OP1 on walls of road side  wherein OP1 claimed that Piles can be cured permanently merely by administering an injection without any operation. Therefore, the complainant, believing these advertisements and pamphlets contacted the OPs and requested them to treat him being patient of piles. It has been further stated that the complainant underwent treatment with OP1 at the hands of OP2 and OP3 (doctors of OP1) and the complainant had given a handsome amount of money to the OPs for so called treatment.  However despite this treatment, the complainant had to suffer continuous bleeding which led to pus formation and as such the complainant had to undergo treatment in other hospital / doctors facing unnecessary mental agony and physical pain and torture at the hands of OPs and also incur heavy expenses. It has been stated by the complainant that many patients might have not lodged any complaint against the OPs as they are very influential persons of the area and the complainant apprehends that the OPs are quacks in all possibilities who have been indulged in earning money by illegal means by making false claim and misrepresentation. It has been further submitted by the complainant that due to mistreatment given by the OPs, the complainant has become physically very weak and infirm and due to the weakness, he is not able to work as he used to work. The complainant had lodged complaint with the Secretary, Medical Counsel of India, Dwarka New Delhi on 31.03.2015 since OP2 and OP3 were registered doctors/ proctologist under DBCP  which merely forwarded the said complaint to Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad vide reference no. MCI 211 (2)(7)complaint/2015/Ethics/108510 and 108512 dated 25.05.2015. No response had been received by the complainant despite letter dated 21.09.2015 written by the complainant to Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad (DBCP). Further, feeling aggrieved and as a last resort the complainant lodged complaint dated 01.02.2016 with the SHO PS Jyoti Nagar, Delhi and higher officers of Delhi Police but no action was taken. The complainant has claimed that he was subjected to cruelty by the OPs which amounted to deficiency in service apart from harassment, mental and physical of the complainant and the complainant had to suffer a lot at the hands of OPs. Therefore, the complainant vide the present complaint has prayed before this Forum to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) alongwith interest @ 36% p.a. as compensation for causing mental torture, discomfort, harassment, pain, frustration and agony to the complainant and also to direct the OPs to return Rs. 45,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 36% since 19.01.2015 till its realization and further directions to OPs to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant towards legal expenses incurred by him.     

Complainant has attached copy of advertisement dated 17.01.2016 publish in newspaper Delhi, Dainik Jagran (East Delhi Addition), photographs of advertisements of OP pasted / printed on walls,copy of prescription dated 19.01.2015 issued by OP1, copy of another prescription dated 13.02.2015 issued by Dr. Anil Kumar Pathak, copy of lab reports dated 14.02.2015 from Gen X Diagnostics, copy of prescription dated 20.02.2015 issued by Hindu Rao Hospital and copy of ultrasound report of whole abdomen of complainant dated 08.03.2015. The complainant has also attached copy of complete haemogram, urine / stool examination and blood tests dated 08.03.2015 by Life Care Diagnostics alongwith a copy of complaint letter dated 31.03.2015 addressed to Secy., Medical Counsel of India, Dwarka, New Delhi with prescribed performa for submitting original complaint under Indian Medical Counsel Regulations 2002. Besides the above, a copy of banker’s cheque no. 886053 dated 24.03.2015 for an amount of Rs. 200/- payable to Secy., Medical Counsel of India, copies of advertisements at different places, copy of acknowledgement issued by Medical Counsel of India, copy of prescription dated 09.04.2018 issued by Dr. Anil Kumar Pathak, copy of letter from Medical Counsel of India dt 25.05.2015 addressed to the Registrar, Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, copy of forwarding letter issued by Medical Counsel of India alongwith other prescriptions and further investigations for June 2015 test reports have also been attached by the complainant in support of his contentions. In addition to above a copy of complaint against OP1 addressed to MCI dated 21.09.2015, complaint to the Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation dated 01.10.2015 alongwith a copy of complaint against Dr. S.P. Singh Chawla and Dr. S.K. Gaur alongwith Janta Piles Clinic addressed to different authorities has also been attached wiz complaint dated 07.12.2015 to Registrar DBCP, reminder letter dated 08.01.2016 by MCI to DBCP for status update on complaint dated 25.05.2015, complaint against OP by the complainant to Commissioner of Police, SHO PS Jyoti Nagar, DCP North East, MOHFW, Ministry of Health and Chief Minister New Delhi dated 01.02.2016 for cheating, professional misconduct, breach of trust and suspension of license of OP1. The complainant has also attached copy of application under RTI dated 07.07.2016 alongwith reply received from DBCP dated 13.06.2016 in which DBCP informed the complainant that as per judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) 7865/2010 dated 08.04.2016, Doctors registered with DBCP are not entitled to practice in modern scientific system of medicine / allopathic system of medicine. Lastly the complainant file complaint dated 11.08.2016 to MCI against the OPs. The complainant has placed on record bills / cash memos towards the purchase of medicines and the amount paid towards various tests undertaken by the complainant as advised by the OPs.

2. A notice was issued to the OPs on 22.10.2016 for appearance before the Forum on 16.11.2016 which were served on OPs on 27.10.2016. However, none of the OPs appeared before this Forum and as such were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated of this Forum 29.11.2016.
3. Ex parte affidavit of evidence and written arguments filed by complainant wherein grievance raised in the complaint were reiterated.
4. Despite stating in the arguments stage that the complainant doesn’t wish to file judgment in support of his contentions, a copy of Delhi High Court Judgment in WPC 7865/2010 dated 8.4.2016 in the matter of Delhi Medical Association V/s. Principal Secretary (Health) & Ors have been submitted wherein the issue that no practitioner of Indian system of Medicine or Homoeopathic Medicine can practice in allopathic system of medicines including by prescribing allopathic medicines to patients has been adjudicated upon and it has been held that a notification dated 10.02.1961 of Delhi Government issued in pursuance of Rule 2 (EE) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 doesn’t entitle any person, not holding a qualification listed in the schedule to the Indian Medicine Counsel Act 1956 and whose name is not entered in the State Medical Register under Delhi Medical Counsel Act 1997 to prescribe Allopathic Drugs and also the notification dated 19.05.2004 of the Central Counsel of India Medicine does not entitle the practitioner of Indian Medicines within the meaning of Indian Medicines Central Council Act 1970, even if holding a degree in integrated medicines within the meaning of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act 1998 to practice Modern Scientific System of Medicine/ Allopathic System of Medicines within the meaning of Indian Medical Counsel Act 1956 read with Indian Medical Degrees Act 1916. 
5. We have heard the oral arguments addressed by the complainant and also perused the evidence submitted by complainant in support of his contentions. On perusal of documentary evidence, it can be seen that the complainant had consulted OP1 through its doctors OP2 and OP3 in OPD on 19.01.2015 for treatment of Piles and had been prescribed medication for 7 days by OPs after which the complainant revisited the OP1 on 27.01.2015 for further treatment / course of action. But soon thereafter he discontinued the treatment with the OPs and visited another doctor namely Anil Kumar Pathak on 13.02.2015 and thereafter followed his treatment and underwent all subsequent medical tests/ investigation (reports of which are placed on record by the complainant) as per doctor Pathak’s advice and continued his treatment in June 2015- July 2015 for further investigations done on the basis of Dr. Pathak prescriptions. Therefore the expenses incurred on lab investigation, consultation, medicine bills etc attached by the complainant, since are all as per the advice of treating Dr Anil Pathak, the same cannot be attributed or linked with OPs in any manner whatsoever. The complainant, barring the prescription of OPs dated 19.01.2015 had not placed on record any proof of receipt for the payment made by him to OP1 for consultation, medical bills etc. In fact all the medical bills placed on record by the complainant alongwith the complaint were being prescribed by Dr. A.K. Pathak and not by the OPs.   Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish any case of deficiency of service on the part of OPs for want of sufficient proof by way of documentary evidence. We therefore dismiss the present complaint as devoid of merits.
6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on  14.05.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member