Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

1.      This appeal is filed by original complainant feeling aggrieved by an order dated 31/01/2017 passed by Additional District Forum Nagpur, by which the consumer complaint bearing No.12/524 has been dismissed. We have heard learned advocate Shri Mohod appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Shri Mahurkar appearing for the original opposite party Nos.1 and 3 / respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, respectively. We have also perused the record and proceedings of the present appeal.

2.      The consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum below under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 claiming an amount of Rs.2,30,095/- on various heads mentioned in para No.12 of the said complaint from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and further claiming interest @ 18% P.A. over the said amount. The allegations made in the complaint in brief by the original complainant/appellant were that she being the beneficiary of an insurance scheme, she was admitted in the hospital of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein on 19/11/2011, as she was suffering from abdominal pain. But the respondents discharged her on 24/11/2011 without performing ultrasound scan/X-ray to diagnos the root cause of her abdominal pain and provided medicines to her for one month. She further alleged that on 28/01/2012 all of sudden she suffered severe abdominal pain. Hence she was required to be shifted at night in the hospital of “Chiranjivi Nursing Home” where the doctor had taken ultra sound/X-ray and carried out operation on her on 30/01/2012. She further alleged that thereafter the respondent No.1 did not reimburse the bill of Rs.50,000/- which she paid for her operation, though the matter was referred by the Medical Administrative Officer  of E.S.I.S. Nagpur to respondent No.1 to provide that claim to her.

3.      The said complaint was resisted by the respondents herein by filing reply therein. They submitted in brief is as under.

          The appellant never made complaint about the pain in her abdomen to the respondents. The respondents provided proper treatment to the appellant after examining her. The respondents denied medical negligence on their part and submitted that complaint may be dismissed.

4.      The Forum below after hearing both parties and considering evidence brought on record came to the conclusion under impugned order that the original opposite party No.1 Dr.Jayesh M.Timane  (who is not joined as a opposite party to this appeal) never provided treatment to the appellant though the appellant stated that he provided her the treatment as it is proved that he was on leave during the month of November 2011 when the appellant had gone to the hospital of respondent No.1 for treatment. The Forum also observed that it can not be accepted that the appellant had made a complaint about pain in her abdomen to the respondents as the said allegation is baseless. The Forum on perusal of the discharge card issued by the respondent found that on examination of the appellant the diagnosis was made of “Inferior and Lateral Ischemia” and therefore the appellant was referred to Dr.Mahurkar who was running heart clinic. The Forum also observed that on examination of appellant, Dr.Mahurkar gave normal report. The Forum also observed that when no complaint about pain in abdomen is made by the appellant to the respondent, there is no question of her taking sonography and also there was no reason for providing her treatment for pain in abdomen. Moreover the Forum also observed that on 23/01/2012 when the appellant made a complaint about pain in her abdomen she was advised to go to department of surgery, but she did not go there and hence no negligence can be attributed to the respondent herein. Moreover District Forum below further observed that on 30/01/2012 in another hospital namely “Chiranjivi Nursing Home” Nagpur the appellants has undergone surgery for Hydatid Cyst (Liver) with APD. But the discharge card of that hospital does not show that urgent surgery was needed. Moreover the Forum also observed that there is no basis to the allegation of the appellant that respondent made wrong diagnosis. The Forum also observed that had the claim made alongwith bills for reimbursement by the appellant to the respondents, then the same could have been considered. But as the claim was not made, the same can not be considered. Thus on these grounds the Forum held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and consequently the Forum dismissed the complaint.

5.      The learned advocate of the appellant has drawn our attention to the copy of the letter dated 22/03/2012 which was written by Medical Administrative Officer, Nagpur-3 to the respondent No.1 herein alongwith the Annexure for taking necessary action by the respondent No.1. He submitted that the said letter shows the bills were duly submitted to the respondent No.1 for reimbursement. But Forum erred in holding that no such bills were submitted. He further submitted that had the respondents performed ultra sound scan/X-ray of the stomach of the appellant then the diagnosis would have been correctly made, which shows negligence on their part in not taking ultra sound scan/X-ray, though the appellant had made complaint of pain in abdomen to them. He also submitted that the medical case papers do not show that the appellant was advised to go to surgery department of the respondent for further treatment. Thus according to the learned advocate of the appellant impugned order is perverse and illegal and it needs to be set aside. He therefore requested that the reliefs sought for in the complaint may be allowed.

6.      On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondents  supported the impugned order and submitted that from the documents filed on record by the appellant it is not proved that the respondent rendered deficient service or they are guilty of medical negligence. He therefore requested that the appeal may be dismissed.

7.      It was the case of the appellant before the District Forum below that the original opposite party No.1 namely Dr.Jayesh M.Timane attended her and she has made complaint about pain in her abdomen to him, but he did not look after her said complaint and did not take the ultra sound scan/X-ray. However it is not disputed in appeal that Dr.Jayesh M.Timane was actually on leave and did not attend the hospital of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 when the appellant had paid visits to the said hospital for her treatment. Therefore the allegations made by the appellant that she had made a complaint of pain in her abdomen to Dr.Jayesh M.Timane, can not be believed.

8.      It is also not the case of appellant that the respondent did not provide her any sort of treatment. On the contrary the medical case papers show that the respondent No.1 provided proper medical facility and treatment to the appellant as per the ailment diagnosed by the doctors in their hospital.

9.      Moreover we also find that the respondents can not be held guilty of medical negligence simply because they did not take the ultrasound scan/X-ray of the appellant, particularly when she had not made complaint about pain in her abdomen to the respondents. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents had diagnosed disease after due examination of the respondent and also provided proper treatment to the disease. Therefore it can not be said that merely because another hospital after taking ultra sound scan/X-ray diagnosed the a disease and performed surgical operation, it can not be said that the respondents are guilty of medical negligence.

10.    We also find that merely because the respondents have not reimbursed the expenses incurred by the appellant for surgical operation in private hospital, it can not be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of respondents for the said reason. It is for the appellant to approach the competent authority/Court for reimbursement of her bills as per rules and regulations. The District Forum below can not give a direction to the respondents for reimbursement of the said bills when no medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of respondents is establish, in the present case.

11.    Thus we hold that there is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.

// ORDER //

I.      Appeal is dismissed.

II.     No order as to cost in appeal.

III.    Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.