Delhi

North East

CC/353/2022

Vasudev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jeevan Jyoti Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2024

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.353/22

In the matter of:

 

	Vasudev, S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Gopal, R/o H.No. B-309, Street No. 25, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Through ita Authorized Representative,   Dr. Sarita (CMD)   Both at: M-62, Sector 12, Santosh Medical Road, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P 201009	Opposite Parties

 

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

02.09.2022 29.08.2024 02.09.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

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 he was suffering from severe pain in abdomen due to kidney stone. Complainant stated that he visited Opposite Party No. 1 hospital for treatment and Opposite Party No. 2 examined him and advised to undergo kidney stone surgery. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 2 further told him that she would have to call a surgeon who will operate him. Complainant stated that he got admitted in Opposite Party No. 1 hospital on 01.02.2022 and the surgery was performed by the surgeon in which a calculus of 6mm was removed from his left kidney and a DJ stent in his left kidney was planted on 03.02.2022. Complainant was discharged on 05.02.2022 and he was assured that he would be fine after few days of post-surgery medication. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 2 prescribed various medicines on 05.02.2022 and 10.02.2022 and he took all the medicines but he did not find any improvement in his health. Complainant stated that he visited Opposite Party No. 2 several times as his condition was not improving but every time Opposite Party just suggested to take the medicine regularly. Complainant stated that as no improvement was seen in health so he visited Opposite Party No. 1 hospital again and again but Opposite Party No. 2 just did various medical tests and prescribed various medicines to raise high bills. Complainant stated that he did not get any relief from his continuous abdomen pain and other health issues. Complainant stated that on 28.02.2022 Opposite Party No. 2 performed a USG whole abdomen test and made a false report stating therein that no evidence of Hydronephrosis or Calculus was seen whereas a DJ stent seen in left kidney. Complainant stated that he got it cross checked at RG Stone, Urology & Laparoscopy Hospital, Delhi on 02.03.2022 where doctor performed ultrasound KUB Region test of the Complainant and it was revealed that there was a calculus of 6.2mm noted at lower calyx, mild hydro ureteronephrosisseen (left kidney) and a DJ stent was seen. Complainant stated that doctors of RG stone revealed that the operation was not performed by the Opposite Parties as a calculus of 6.2 mm could not develop in just 02 days. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 75,000/- which was paid by him for treatment along with interest. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.04.2023.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

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

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that he was having pain in his abdomen and he approached Opposite Party No. 1 hospital. There he was examined by doctor i.e. Opposite Party No. 2. The doctor told him that there was a kidney stone and the Complainant would have to undergo kidney stone surgery. The case of the Complainant is that he got admitted in the hospital of Opposite Party No. 1 on 01.02.2022. The surgery was performed and a DJ stent was planted in his left kidney on 03.02.2022. The Complainant was discharged from the hospital on 05.02.2022. The case of the Complainant is that after the surgery he did not get any relief from the pain and he visited several times the hospital of Opposite Party No. 1. His case is that on his every visit he was told to take medicine and assured him that he would be fine after few days. Then the Complainant visited RG Stone, Urology and Laparoscopy hospital on 02.03.2022. There he was examined by the doctor and he was told that there was stone in his left kidney and a DJ stent was there in his left kidney. The doctor also told him that in fact no stone was removed from his kidney. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No. 1 hospital did not performed the surgery nor removed the stone and thus there is a deficiency on its part.
5. The Complainant has filed copy of the discharge summary given by Opposite Party No. 1 hospital. The perusal of the same shows that the said discharge summary does not mention about the kidney stone surgery. The relevant part of the said discharge summary is as under:

“Provisional Diagnosis at the time of Admission   Final Diagnosis at the time of Discharge   Presenting Complaints with Duration and reason for Admission   Summary of Presenting Illness

AFI with age with dehydration with? UTI under evaluation     Enteric Fever with age with UTI          Fever × 2 days, Loose Motion (Multiple Episodes), Vomiting (Recurrent), Pain in Abdomen, Dysurea, Dehydration     Fever × 2 days”

 

6. Thus, it is clear that as per the discharge summary, no surgery was performed by the Opposite Party No. 1 hospital as alleged by the Complainant. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
7.  Order announced on 02.09.2024.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)