Reserved
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Complaint Case No.52 of 2022
Indrajeet Singh Patel s/o Sri Ramji Singh,
R/o H. no.512/53-Ka, 7th Lane, Nishatganj,
P.S. Mahanagar, Distt. Lucknow. …Complainant.
Versus
1- Midland Health Care & Research Centre,
B-55, Mandir Marg, Mahanagar, Lucknow
-226006 through its Director/Prop.,
Dr. B.P. Singh (M.D. PCCP, USA),
2- Dr. B.P. Singh (M.D. PCCP, USA)
C/o Midland Health Care & Research Centre,
B-55, Mandir Marg, Mahanagar, Lucknow
-226006 ...Opp. parties.
Present:-
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President.
Sri V.S. Pandey, Advocate for complainant.
Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava and Sri Vijay Kumar Tiwari,
Advocates for the opposite parties.
Date: 26.9.2024
JUDGMENT
Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, President: Heard Sri V.S. Pandey, learned Counsel for the complainant and Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava and Sri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the opposite parties and perused the complaint.
The instant complaint has been filed under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with delay by the complainant for the following reliefs:-
“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this complaint by providing the aforesaid compensation to the complainant form the opposite parties concerned in the interest of justice.
Any other order or direction which is deemed just, fit and proper be passed in favour of the complainant in the interest of justice.”
Facts of the case stated, in brief, are that, that for medical treatment of the daughter of the complainant namely Miss. Dimpal Singh alias Menka Singh Patel, the complainant reached at the hospital of the opposite parties on 22.9.2016, and the opposite parties instead of providing the required treatment, they started baseless treatment and provided useless and high doses of medicines w.e.f. 22.9.2016 to 12.11.2016. The treatment was started firstly for vomitting and thereafter, the opposite parties advised the complainant that there is water in the lungs of daughter of the complainant and as such, apprised that there become in the intestine, and said to arrange and to pay of the heavy amount of about Rs.5,00,000.00 one time. It is alleged that after deposit of money, the opposite parties did operation.
It is alleged that the operation was done in negligent manner as a result of which the daughter of the complainant expired on 26.11.2016. The aforesaid problem created and developed due to providing heavy doses and the medicines, and in the treatment and operation the total amount of about Rs.20,00,000.00 (Rs. Twenty lakhs) has been spent.
It also stated that the age of the daughter of the complainant was about 12 years at the time of his illness as well as death but due to carelessness and negligent and mal-practice adopted by the opposite parties concerned the daughter of the complainant has died. Regarding the same F.I.R. dated 7.3.2017 of case crime no.122/2017, under section 304,384 Cr.P.C., P.S., Mahanagar, Distt. Lucknow has been lodged by the complainant against the opposite parties.
The complainant has several times approached to the opposite parties concerned and other authorities concerned in respect of his grievances and also for taking necessary action against the opposite parties concerned and also submitted the applications and personally requested for providing the compensation regarding the same, the notice was also given by the complainant, but no action has been taken and the opposite parties concerned one pretext or the other in respect of grievances of complainant.
It is submitted by the counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties concerned have not provided the sufficient services to their patient and due to negligence in the treatment the daughter of complainant expired. The daughter of the complainant is a very excellent and intelligent student and due to negligent and wrong treatment of the opposite parties she died.
The complainant has also stated that he has spent about Rs.20,00,000.00 in the treatment of his daughter. Therefore, the complainant filed the above mentioned complaint against the opposite parties for compensation of Rs.1,20,50,000.00 (Rs.One crore twenty lakhs fifty thousand), the details of which are given in para 6 of the complaint which reads as follows:-
“That due to giving the baseless and useless medicines the daughter of the complainant expired, and as such the complainant is liable to get the following compensation from the opposite parties concerned.
1- Medical expenses in treatment of
The aforesaid daughter of the
Complainant and other expenses.Rs.20,00,000.00
2- Love and affection towards the
daughter of the complainant. Rs.50,00,000.00
3- Regarding the future and future
future earning of the daughter
of the complainant. Rs.50,00,000.00
4- Legal expenses etc. Rs. 50,000.00
Total Rs.1,20,50,000.00”
The instant complaint has been filed with huge delay before this court. Admittedly the patient who has been treated by the opposite parties has expired on 26.11.2016 whereas the instant complaint has been filed before this court on 25.4.2022 i.e. about 2000 days after the cause of action starts.
Alongwith the delay condonation application, an affidavit has been filed by the father of the deceased, a resident of House no.512/53-Ka, 7th Lane, Nishatganj, P.S. Mahanagar, Distt. Lucknow, stated therein that after the death of the daughter, he has contacted opposite parties who have given him assurance for providing the proper compensation, that assurance was allegedly given by the opposite parties orally. Therefore, the complaint could not have been filed in time. Further, it is stated in the affidavit that due to financial crisis as well as COVID-19 Pandemic and unawareness, the complaint has been filed beyond prescribed time.
In reply to the above submission, ld. counsel for the opposite parties Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava has submitted that the delay in filing the complaint/petition has to be explained by day-to-day cause of delay and not as has been stated by the complainant in his affidavit supported with delay condonation application. No specific reason has been assigned. He has further submitted that the complainant is residing at House no.512/53-Ka, 7th Lane, Nishatganj, P.S. Mahanagar, Distt. Lucknow and not in any rural area having no basic knowledge of the proceedings, a period of more than 5½ years cannot be a reason for delay not it can be condoned on the basis of reason assigned by the complainant.
I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire documents available on record very carefully.
Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the daughter of the complainant namely Miss. Dimpal Singh alias Menka Singh Patel, felt pain in the stomach for which the complainant reached at the hospital of the opposite parties with his daughter on 22.9.2016, where the opposite parties started treatment firstly for vomitting and thereafter, the opposite parties advised the complainant that there is water in the lungs of daughter of the complainant and as such, the opposite parties said to arrange the heavy amount of about Rs.5,00,000.00 for further treatment. Thereafter, operation was done in negligent manner as a result of which the daughter of the complainant expired on 26.11.2016.
It has also been argued by the ld. counsel for the complainant that due to negligence in providing treatment to the daughter of the complainant, the daughter of the complaint could not be saved and died on 26.11.2016.
It also stated that the age of the daughter of the complainant was about 12 years at the time of operation and due to negligent and mal-practice adopted by the opposite parties in the treatment, the daughter of the complainant died. Regarding the same F.I.R. dated 7.3.2017 of case crime no.122/2017, under section 304,384 Cr.P.C., P.S., Mahanagar, Distt. Lucknow has been lodged by the complainant against the opposite parties.
The ld. counsel for the opposite parties instead of arguing on the merit of the complaint, he argued that the complaint has been filed with delay of about 1975 days and no sufficient reason has been shown by the complainant about this delay. The daughter of the complainant has died on 26.11.2016 and the complaint is filed in April, 2022 whereas the complaint should have been filed within two years from the date of death.
Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has filed following case laws in support of his argument.
1- Order dated 7.11.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in writ petition(criminal) no.306/2022, Nepal Das vs. High Court of Calcutta & ors.
2- Judgment dated 10.4.2023 passed by Hon’ble National Commission in complaint case no.155 of 2021, Ms.Deela Negi vs. DLF Universal Limited.
3- Judgment dated 8.4.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Special Leave petition no.31248/2018, Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by LRs & ors. vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA).
4- 762 Supreme Court Reports (1962), Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.
5- AIR 1977 SC 2221, Mahant Bikram Dass Chela vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab Chandigarh & ors.
6- (2009) 4 SCR 762, State Bank of India vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries(I).
7- 2006(1) CPR 121 (SC), Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. B.K.Sood.
8- Order dated 2.3.2023 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in complaint no.789 of 2020.
9- 2003(2) CPR 81 (NC), K.G. Kumaran vs. Dr. Santharam Shetty & ors.
10- 2008(3) CPR 334 (NC), Smt. Suresta Sharma & ors. vs. Shri Piar Chand (Hony. Capt.)
11- 2000(1) CPR 296, State Commission U.P., Lucknow, Mark International vs. Bank of India & ors.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and after going through the material and evidence available on record, I find that the allegation with regard to negligence by the opposite parties/doctors appears to be baseless. The complaint has nowhere averred in the complaint that on which date the operation was conducted by the opposite parties and what the negligence was committed by the opposite parties in conducting the operation.
Further, it is submitted that the complainant has not even placed any material evidence by which it can be established by him that he has deposited a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rs. Five Lakhs) in cash with the opposite parties and then only the surgery has been started by the opposite parties. Prima-facie, this allegation appears to be not acceptable.
The complainant lodged the FIR under section 304,384 Cr.P.C. after obtaining the order under section 156(3) from the competent court and thereafter, after due investigation twice final report has been submitted by the investigator.
The First Information Report has been lodged after a gap of more than 4 months which is self-explanatory and here is also delay in lodging the First Information Report.
It is alleged that the complainant approached the various authorities both at the Central level as well as State level including the Medical Council of India (MCI) and PMO. The matter has been adjudicated and opportunity was provided by the Medical Council of India (MCI), as informed by the ld. counsel for the respective parties and thereafter, the complaint alleged by the complainant has been rejected by the Medical Council of India (MCI). The documents available on record establishes that apart from the aforesaid proceedings the complainant also approached the local administrative authorities and government authorities who also adjudicated the proceedings and after considering the complaint and allegations reached at the conclusion that they do not find any irregularities or negligence on the part of the opposite parties/doctors/medical practitioner.
The complaint is filed by the complainant after a long delay of about 1247 days (i.e. after a lapse of 2 years of the period permissible) and no sufficient cause and reason has been shown by the complainant for the above delay. The ld. counsel for the opposite parties has filed various case laws in which it has been observed that such a huge delay cannot be condoned.
After going through arguments of the ld. counsel for the respective parties and perusing all the documents available on the record, I find no force in the complaint. Therefore, the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint are liable to rejected and complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.
(Justice Ashok Kumar)
President
Jafri PA 1
Court 1
