Haryana

StateCommission

A/474/2014

UIIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kamlesh - Opp.Party(s)

Satpal Dhamija

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.474 of 2014

Date of the Institution:11.06.2014

Date of Decision: 22.11.2016

 

1.      United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office at Rohtak, through its Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional office, Chandigarh, SCO-123-124, Sector-17 B, Chandigarh.

2.      Dr. Ramesh Kumar Jain M.B.B.S, M.D. (Obs. & Gyane) Consultant Gynecologist, Jain Hospital and Fertility Centre, Kath Mandi, (Near Jugal Kishore Hospital), Rohtak.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

Smt. Kamlesh wife of Sh. Ajit, resident of village and post office Ritoli, Tehsil and District Rohtak.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                    Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Dr. Ramesh Kumar Jain- OPs are in appeal against the Order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Smt. Kamlesh has been allowed directing the OP-1 to pay Rs.4,00,000/- on account of pain & sufferings, loss of earnings due to wrong medical treatment.

2.      Briefly stated, the complainant had a Rasouli in upper portion of her head and for the treatment she sent to the Civil Hospital, Rohtak on 25.04.2006 where she was advised to come on 28.04.2006 for further treatment. But on 28.04.2006, the doctor was on leave so she contacted Dr. Ramesh Kumar Jain OP No.1, who operated the complainant and gave injection for the purpose of Anaesthesia and necessary treatment and relieved at 7.00 P.M. after operation and treatment. On 29.04.2006, the complainant felt severe pain in her right arm where injection was given, so the complainant went to OP-1 in the evening on 29.04.2006 and the OP No.1 gave another injection and some medicines and discharged her by advising the complainant to consult some other doctors also. On 30.04.2006 when the pain was unbearable then the complainant again visited the OP No.1, but the OP No.1 showed his helplessness, so the complainant went to PGIMS, Rohtak where the doctors told her that she had developed the symptoms of gangrene due to wrong injection and treatment given by OP No.1. On 04.05.2006 her right hand was amputated by the doctors in PGIMS, Rohtak to stop the further growth of gangrene in other parts of the body. Alleging, a patent deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 in treating Smt. Kamlesh, the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the OPs to pay a  compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- jointly and severally with interest and litigation expenses.

3.      According to the OPs, it is denied that on 28.04.2006 the doctor of Civil Hospital was on leave and she was feeling pain so she approached the OP-1 at 1.00 P.M. The complainant was fully investigated at Civil Hospital, Rohtak. All the procedure which was made and the medicines which the respondent prescribed to the patient on two separate OPD slips. But the complainant had submitted only one OPD Slip having record of medicines, which the answering respondent gave at the time of discharge, the second slip has not been submitted. The complainant was told the lesion is due to some insect/snake bite and has nothing to do with that swelling/ lump which was removed and the complainant was advised to get to PGIMS, Rohtak or to some orthopaedic surgeon. But on 30.04.2006 complainant again told about her unbearable pain and she was again advised to go to PGIMS, Rohtak, but the complainant reached the PGIMS at 2.00 P.M. on 30.04.2006. Up to that time she was quite late for treatment of condition which she had developed due to insect bite/ snake bile and medical person diagnose it as case of compartment syndrome with Cellulitus and fasciotomy was done. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. However, the learned District Forum rejected their pleas and accepted the complaint vide order dated 07.05.2014 by awarding to the complainant the compensation mentioned above. 

4.      Against this Order of the learned District Forum, the OPs have filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification, as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant was not entitled to claim any amount from the OPs. 

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that while discharging the complainant after treatment and even thereafter the Dr. Ramesh Kumar Jain- OP-1 did not supply any record of treatment i.e. the discharge summary having diagnosis, prescription and the procedure of treatment along with the medicine administered to the complainant. The visits of the complainant to Dr. Jain on 29^th and 30^th April, 2006 are also not denied by the appellant. Further, it is admitted by OP No.1 in the written statement that he did operate the complainant by giving local anesthetic agent. In fact, if the doctor felt any difficulty in treating the complainant in his own clinic and felt the necessity of better expert opinion, he should have referred the patient to PGIMS, Rohtak. He failed to do so. The burden of explaining as to why the condition of the patient deteriorated so rapidly necessitating the amputation of arm was of the doctor, which he failed to discharge. This act of deficiency in service on the part of the doctor amply proves the medical negligence, which has resulted in permanent loss of her right hand thereby disabling her permanently from leading normal life.  In these circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Forum in holding OP-1 deficient in discharging his medical professional duties and the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainant are legally in order and deserves to be upheld.

6.       Consequently we do not find any merit in the appeal and uphold the detailed and well reasoned Order passed by the learned District Forum. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

November 22nd, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench