Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/236/2024

Krishna W/o Pritam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.M. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Khurana

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

CC No.236 of 2024.

Krishan vs. MM Institute.

 

Present:           Sh.Gagan Budhiraja, Adv. for complainant.

                  

                   By way of this complaint, the complainant alleged, he was suffering from back pain and lower limb, so in the month of November-2018, she visited to the opponent No.1 for her treatment and on 29.11.2018 surgery was performed, fact is reflected from discharge summary & follow up card Ex.C.2 issued by the opponent No.1 and she incurred expenditure on her treatment in the sum of Rs.200000/-, but the surgery performed by the opponent No.2 could not resulted into satisfactory result, as the opponent operated the complaiant negligently and gave false assurances to her only for their professional benefits.  There was no need of any surgery on her and she should have been managed only by way of medicines and physiotherapy.  The complainant suffered lot, such as mental agony, harassment as well as financial loss at the hands of the opponents, due to their act of negligent performance of surgery and she requested many times to compensate her, but failed, which constrained her to file this complaint.

2.                Along with the complaint, the complainant filed an application, seeking permission to condone the delay in filing the complaint, on the ground, the complainant approached the opponents and told her problem, but initially the opponents continued to assure her, the recovery shall take time and as per medical advice of the opponent, she availed services of physiotherapist, even there was no improvement in her condition and due to her medical condition she was confined to hed and is unable to move and she was unable to visit the court premises and to file the complaint.

3.                    So far application for condonation of delay is concerned, the surgery was performed upon the complainant on 29.11.2018, as per her own version, but her condition was not improved.  She was discharged from hospital of opponent on 23.12.2018 and if the opponent had acted negligently, then, why she had not filed a complaint within the period of two years, counting from December-2018 to December-2020.  Even excluding the covid-19 period, the complainant raised her grievance at belated stage and there is nothing on record that she is bed ridden. The complainant alleged, she followed the instructions of the opponent, qua bed rest, medicines, follow up treatment, diet and exercises and if she followed up the instructions of the opponent, then, definitely, documents/evidence is supposed to be available and if she has not contacting to the opponent, then, quite obvious, she has contacted to the another doctor or doctor may contact to her by visiting her home, again there is no record. The complainant has concocted a story being bed ridden, just to cover the period of limitation. Another important aspect is, in para No.7 of the application, the complainant alleged, she was unable to visit the Court premises to file the complaint and she tried contact the Advocate, legal experts and a few days ago at the instance of her relative, lawyer contacted to her at her house and prepared the papers. This fact itself proves, the complainant is in full senses and she could have contacted to the lawyer earlier. So reason, stated in the application for condonation of delay is not convincing and is liable to be dismissed, it being barred by period of limitation under section 69 of the Act.

4.                     Coming on the merits of the case, the complainant alleged, she incurred expenditure of Rs.200000/-, on her treatment, but there is no documents on the record, showing she made payment of any amount to the opponent No.1.  In para No.13 of the complaint, she (complainant) alleged, she requested the opponent to provide her complete treatment record, but they refused to provide. The discharge summary Ex.C.2 itself proves on the record, she was supplied the relevant documents and in order to invoke the the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora payment of consideration in cash or in any kind, is must. In the present case, the complainant has not able to establish, she had made any payment of consideration to the opponents. In the absence of making any payment of consideration in any kind or cash, the complainant is not falling within the definition of consumer and on this score, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, the complaint in itself is vague. Mere allegations of negligence are not sufficient. The complainant has not specifically pointed out, what the act of negligence committed by the opponent No.2 while performing the surgery on her and on this score also, the complaint is also liable to be dismissed.

5.                    Hence, due to reasons stated here-in-before, the complaint is dismissed, it being barred by period of limitation and devoid on merits.

6.                      Certified copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of coss.

7.                      File be consigned to the records.

 

                    

                                                                                      President,

                                                                                      DCDRC, YNR,

L. Member                       Member                                30.7.2024.

 

 

 

Typed by: Gaphoor Deen, Asstt