BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.408 of 2014

Date of Instt. 19.11.2014

Date of Decision :26.11.2014

Asha Rani aged about 47 years wife of Balwinder R/o VPO Sandhma, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Globe Multi Specialty Hospital Spine, Neuro, Trauma and Accident Care Centre, Lakkar Mandi, Phillaur, District Jalandhar through its Manager Dr.Avinash Singh Chouhan,

2. Dr.Avinash Singh Chouhan, M/s Globe Multi Specialty Hospital Spine, Neuro, Trauma and Accident Care Centre, Lakkar Mandi, Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

3. Dr.Piya Chauha, Child Specialist, Globe Multi Specialty Hospital Spine, Neuro, Trauma and Accident Care Centre, Lakkar Mandi, Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Navdeep Bhagat Adv., counsel for complainant.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that in the month of February 2012, complainant slipped and got an injury on her right hand(wrist). On which she went to Khan Hospital Trauma Care and Physiotherapy near Basra Palace, Khothral Road, Phagwara, who referred complainant to opposite parties. Complainant went to the hospital Globe Multispeciality Hospital Spine, Neuro, Trauma and Accident Care Centre situated at Lakkar Mandi, Phillaur. Thereafter the opposite party No.2 advised complainant that there is nothing serious and said that there would be a small surgical operation to be performed, which will take only 15-20 minutes. Opposite parties told complainant that the said operation will cost about less than Rs.15,000/-. Complainant acting on the advise of opposite parties got admitted herself in their hospital for the operation in the first week of month of February 2012. Thereafter opposite party no.2 operated complainant and charged Rs.18,000/- from complainant for operation. That opposite parties did not hand over the bill and the treatment papers and file to complainant. After performing the operation, the complainant's hand did not work and she got pain in her hand. Complainant again visited to opposite parties complaining that her hand was not working. Thereafter opposite parties again advised complainant that second operation has to be done and told to complainant that the said operation will cost Rs.20,000/-. They also told that an anesthesia injection has to be injected before the operation which will cost about Rs.2500/-. But no such injection was injected upon complainant before the operation. The second operation was performed on 6.7.2012 by opposite parties. After the second operation was performed, complainant's hand again did not work and thereafter complainant regularly got checked up herself from opposite parties from time to time and opposite parties assured complainant that after some time the hand of the complainant will work properly soon. But even after second operation, the hand of the complainant did not recover. The opposite parties charged Rs.35,000/- for second operation. It is alleged that thereafter complainant on dated 3.8.2014 again visited the opposite parties for check-up of her hand and opposite parties again advised to her that her hand has to be operated again. On this, she refused to get her hand operated again from opposite parties and asked to them to give back her money, treatment papers and files. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.57,500/- paid by her from time to time alongwith interest @ 18% p.a from February 2012 till payment. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for the complainant on the question of limitation.

3. The first operation was performed by the opposite parties on the hand of the complainant in the month of February 2012 and second operation on 6.7.2012. According to the own version of the complainant even after second operation her hand did not work. So complainant is alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties in conducting the above said two operations. The cause of action, if any arose to the complainant firstly in February 2012 when first operation was performed and then on 6.7.2012 or immediately thereafter when second operation was performed but her hand did not work properly. Thereafter the complainant visited the opposite parties on 3.8.2014 i.e after two years and on 3.8.2014 the opposite parties again advised the complainant for operation of her hand but she refused. The third visit when the complainant refused for operation in no way extend the period of limitation. In the present case, the period of limitation is to be computed from February 2012 or 6.7.2012. The present complaint was filed on 18.11.2014 i.e beyond the period of limitation of two years. The complainant has also not filed any application for condonation of delay. So present complaint is clearly time barred. Even third visit of the complainant to the opposite parties was after period of limitation of two yeas.

4. In our opinion, the present complaint is time barred and is dismissed as such. Copies of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

26.11.2014 Member President