Delhi

West Delhi

CC/10/347

ANOOP BHANDARIA- - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.K. HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                                        Date of institution -12/05/2010 

  Complaint Case. No-347/10                                                                              Date of order:  1/10/16                  

 

In the Matter of

 

 

Anoop Bhandari,

A-33, Gali No.7,

Himgiri Enclave, Chander Vihar,

New Delhi.                                                                                                                              COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

K.K. Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,

2, Inder Enclave,Rohtak Road,

Peera Garhi,New Delhi-87.                                                                                   OPPOSITE PARTY-1

 

 

Spectrum Imaging & Diagnostic Center,

8, Inder Enclave,Rohtak Road,

Paschim Vihar, New  Delhi-87.                                                                                OPPOSITE PARTY-2

 

 

Vidhya Shree Path Care,

2A, Lal Quarters, Shiv Mandir Road,  Punjabi Bagh,

New Delhi-26                                                                                                             OPPOSITE PARTY-3

 

 

 

R.K. Yadav, 

Yadav Clinic, Z-109,Vishnu Garden, New Delhi-18.                                    

2

Also at:

Raj Clinic ,

Near Shiv Mandir, Kikar wala Chowk,

Chander Vihar, New Delhi-41.                                                                                  OPPOSITE PARTY-4

 

 

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

42C, 3^rd Floor, Mulchand Commercial Complex, New Delhi-24.                             OPPOSITE PARTY-5

 

ORDER

 

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            Briefly  version of the complaint is  that on 26.3.10  the complainant felt pain in right kidney, back and started vomiting.  He took medicine from Raj Clinic of Dr. R.k Yadav.   Dr. R.K. Yadav sent him to Vidhya Sheeri Path Care (Opposite Party-3) for X-ray of abdomen(USG whole abdomen). 

 

On 28.3.10  he went to  Opposite Party-3.   They charged Rs.900/- from the complainant.  On 28.3.10  Dr. Navdeep Hooda of Spectrum Imaging & Diagnostic Center, op-2 took USG whole abdomen and reported  that there are stones in both kidneys and one  17.6mm stone  in neck of Gallbladder.  The stone can be removed by operation of gallbladder. Dr. Navdeep Hooda, Opposite Party-2 sent the complainant back to Vidhya Shree Path Care.  The head of Vidhya Sheer Path, Opposite Party-3 also told the complainant  that there is 17.6mm stone in the gallbladder of the complainant.  He advised the complainant for  immediate operation of gallbladder from K.K. Hospital, Opposite Party-1 or from any other hospital as condition of the kidney was worsening.   He took advice from Dr. R.K. Yadav, Opposite Party-4 and on 30.3.10 admitted himself  in K.K. Hospital.   The complainant  took package of Rs.12,000/- including room rent , operation, medicine, nursing  and doctor’s visit and tests charges . 

 

            The doctor of K.K. Hospital, Opposite Party-1 told the complainant that he will be operated at 11.00A.M. on 1.4.10 for removal of  gallbladder.   They started injecting gulucose and vovran.  In the

3

evening ECG was done and X-Ray was taken.  His blood pressure was 110/170.  The next morning Dr. A.K. Singh visited the complainant and told him that he will be operated at 11.00A.M.   The complainant told him that his blood pressure was high and requested the doctor for USG as the pain subside.   

 

            The doctor of Opposite Party-1 hospital checked the complainant  and told the nurse attending him that BP of complainant was high and advised for USG.  At about 12.00 Noon USG of the complainant  was taken and found that there was no stone in the gallbladder and there was a small   stone in kidney.   In  the evening Dr. Renu Singh checked the complainant  and told him that he has paid Rs.5,000/- in advance.  She asked the complainant  to clear the dues.   After some time the complainant received bill of Rs.10460/-  The complainant  protested  and told the doctor of Opposite Party-1  that he took package of Rs.12,000/- for operation and now they are charging Rs.10,460/- even without operation.   The complainant paid Rs.4,000/- more.  The doctors wrongly diagnosed the complainant for gallbladder stone.  The complainant  is under depression.   There is medical negligence and deficiency of service collectively on the part of Opposite Parties.   The complainant has  prayed for direction to Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,05,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. 

 

            After notice Opposite Parties filed their separate replies while raising legal objections of maintainability, concealment of true and material facts,  cause of action, jurisdiction and complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed  for ulterior motives just to harm and harass the  Opposite Parties to extract illegal compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  On merits, the Opposite Party-1 asserted  that they are multispeciality hospital.  They further asserted that  the complainant was fully and carefully examined   by qualified doctors of Opposite Party-1 and advised for further investigations.  The complainant was administered antibiotic, anti-inflamatory , analgesics and  antihypertention drugs and after taking treatment of doctors of Opposite Party-1 the condition of complainant improved.  The Opposite Party-2 and Opposite Party-3 are recognized laboratories for medical tests.  The Opposite Party-2 admitted that ultrasound was done on 28.3.10 which  showed multiple tiny stones in both kidneys and 17.6mm stone in gallbladder.   He asserted that the stones in gallbladder may cause acute pain and if the stone flushes out then the pain subsides.   The  Opposite Party-3 asserted that the complainant visited their clinic for USG but they didn’t conduct any such test as there is nonavailability of required instruments and denied all the allegations of the complainant.  The Opposite Party-4 filed reply admitting that the complainant  on 27.3.10 visited his clinic and he advised him  for ultra sound of whole abdomen and

4

thereafter the complainant  never visited Opposite Party-4.    The  Opposite Party-5 stated that Opposite Party-1 has taken professional indeminity policy from them  for the period 15.7.09 to 14.7.10.  They further asserted  that there is no cause of action against them hence the complaint may be dismissed.    

 

            The complainant filed rejoinders to replies of Opposite Parties reiterating the stand taken by him in the complaint and controverting the stand taken by the Opposite Parties in their replies.  

 

            The parties were asked to file evidence by way of affidavit.    The complainant filed affidavit dated  13.4.12  and once again reiterated his stand taken in his complaint. He filed copy of USG  report dated 28.3.10, ultra sound report dated 1.4.10, receipt dated 1.4.10, estimate dated 1.4.10, prescription slip of Opposite Party-4 dated 27.3.10, discharge slip  dated 1.4.10, copy of report dated 3.4.10 and letters dated 6.4.10 and 21.4.10.  The Opposite Parties 1 & 5 filed evidence by way of affidavit.  Dr. A. K. Singh of  Opposite Party-1 in the affidavit dated 24.4.11, once again reiterated their stand taken in the reply and asserted that only conservative treatment was given by the treating doctors of Opposite Party-1 and surgery was never advised or performed by them.  The bills include stay in hospital, investigation,  tests,  nursing and  visiting charges of doctors.  They further asserted that there is no medical negligence or deficiency in service on the  part of op-1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The Opposite Party-1 In support   of their version filed copy of indeminity policy and copy of case sheet.   The Opposite Party-5  filed affidavit dated 28.2.13  of Ravi Kumar Goyal, who  once again reiterated the stand  taken by him in the reply.   He deposed that the policy was taken by Opposite Party-1 and  the policy applies only in the claims  of negligence in the professional services rendered by the insured.  He futher asserted that there is no negligence in the professional services rendered by the insured, therefore, Opposite Party-5 is not liable to pay any compensation and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  The Opposite Party-5 in support of their version filed copy of the insurance policy.   The   Opposite Parties 2, 3 & 4 were proceeded exparte after filing replies.        

 

            We  have heard Ld. counsel for  the parties and appraised the material on record. 

            It is worth mentioning here that medical expert opinion was sought by this Forum from RML Hospital, New Delhi.  Medical Superintendent, RML Hospital constituted a medical expert board.  The board gave opinion dat ed 1.9.10.   which runs as under:

5

 

“1.  The report prepared by Spectrum Imaging & Diagnostics Center indicates that there are stones in both the kidneys as well as gall bladder of the patient.

2.There is nothing on record to show that Vidhya Shree Path Care ever decided to operate the patient. 

3.  The report prepared by Ganesh MRI Center Pvt. Ld. Does not match with the report prepared by Spectrum Imaging & Diagnostics Center.  As per the report of Ganesh MRI Center there are stones in right kidney with moderate hydronephrosis with no evidence of stones in the gall bladder.  As per the report of Spectrum Imaging & Diagnostics Center there are small stones in both the kidneys and there is a stoe in gall bladder measuring 17.6mm. 

4.  The available records do not give evidence of any circumstance which may reflect on the medical negligence /deficiency in service on part of doctors treating Sh. Anoop Bhandari.” 

 

            From the bare reading of the report of medical expert board it is evident that there was no negligence/deficiency in service on the part of doctors treating Sh. Anoop Bhandari, complainant.      Hon’ble National Commission in case law reported as 2003(1)CPR356(NC) has held that the burden of proof that Opposite Parties were negligent is on complainant.  It is not for the Opposite Parties to show that they were not negligent and in cases of professional negligence higher standard of proof then ordinary civil cases of negligence is required.  

 

            In the present complaint except the  affidavit of the complainant there is  nothing on the  record that Opposite Parties were negligent .  Whereas from the medical expert board opinion it is established that there is no negligence  or deficiency in service  on the part of Opposite Parties.  Therefore, the complainant failed to prove that there is any negligence or deficiency in service  on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

 

6

 Hence, there is no merit in the complaint.  Resultantly the complaint is hereby dismissed.

Order pronounced on :1.10.2016

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   (R.S.  BAGRI)

 

  MEMBER                                             MEMBER                               PRESIDENT