Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/122

Indra Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

OPTM Health Care Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI

NEW DELHI-110058

 

 

C.C. NO.122 OF 2014

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Indra Verma(since deceased)

Through legal heirs:

1, Manohar Lal, S/o Late Shri Matu Ram

    Husband of Mrs. Indra Verma

 

2.Ms. Tanya Rohilla,

   D/o Shri Manohar Lal

  

3.Chaitanya Rohilla

   S/o Shri Manohar Lal

 

                                                                                        

All residents of

A-303, Aastha Apartments, Plot No.19-B,

Sector 6, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075                                    ...COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

                                                                                

1.The Organic Phyto-Therapeutic Method (P) Ltd,

    (OPTM Healthcare)

 

Through its Chairman/Mg.Director

2.Mr/Dr.Apurba Ganguly,

 

3. Mr. Ayan Ganguly, Director, OPTM Healthcae

    S/o Mr.Apurba Ganguly

Both at:

31, North West Avenue, 2^nd Floor, Club Road,

Punjabi Bagh West,

New Delhi-110048                                                              ...OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION:	21.02.2014 18.10.2022  30.11.2022

CORAM

 

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms. Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Present: Mr.Manohar Lal, Advocate, husband and LR of complainant

                OP ex parte.

 

ORDER

Per: Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

 

Facts of the present complaint are summarised as under:

1. Complainant (now deceased), aged about 50 years was a chronic patient of Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and Hypothyroidism. She was undergoing treatment at AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) at New Delhi for her ailment for more than 15 years. She had a problem with her knees and other joints. The disease was more or less under control under the supervision of the doctors at AIIMS but cure was a distant dream. The complainant was keen to get her diseases cured and then came across an advertisement in the newspaper, Nav Bharat Times sometime in the last week of October, 2013 issued by the OPs. It was a very highlighted half page advertisement by the OPs  which caught  sight of the complainant. The complainant after going through the advertisement sensed some ray of hope. The advertisement highlighted Mr. Apurba Ganguly/OP NO.2 as a scientist with an extensive experience of 30 years in natural solution to the above stated disease. It was also stated in the advertisement that the said OP.2 (shown to be a doctor in the advertisement but no degree is attributed to him) is also associated with some international organizations of repute at USA, Singapore and here in India. The other important aspect of the advertisement was that  OP.2 would give natural treatment without any oral intake of medicine, surgery, laser therapy. The advertisement also showed series of accolades and prizes won by  OP.2. The advertisement also showed photographs of Sh. Sunil Shastri, S/o Late Sh. Lal Bahadur Shastri (Ex-Prime Minister India) and Sh. SB Ganguly, CEO, Exide Industries Itd., as the persons who got themselves treated by said OP.2 and were stated to be satisfied with the treatment. This was all confidence inspiring. This made the complainant to contact OP.2. However, the degrees and accolades/appreciation, prizes and other affiliation of OP.2 as stated in the advertisement and which lured  the complainant  into getting the treatment from him are a matter of probe.
2. Accordingly, the complainant decided to meet OP.2 and for that purpose she took an appointment for 03.10.2013 and paid a consultation fee of Rs.990/- at the reception office of OP.1 against a receipt. As per complainant,  OP.2 accompanied by his son Ayan Ganguly/OP.3 (who addressed himself as the Director of OP.1) completely brainwashed the complainant and tried their best to make her to take the course of 42 sittings and assured her that she will be completely cured of her diseases after 42 sittings. She was apprised by the duo that she will have to stop taking all types of medication, may it be for Arthritis or Osteoarthritis or Thyroid, to get maximum results.  Complainant told OPs that  she  was already under the treatment of All India Institute of Medical Sciences for those diseases. The complainant was reluctant but OP.3 and one Mr.Rajeev at the reception counter of OPs besides OP.2 made her to believe that this is the only cure for her diseases and that she will be cured of all diseases if she takes 42 sittings treatment  from the OPs. They further assured the complainant that nowhere else in the world these diseases can be cured. But the complainant decided to take trial course of four days and paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- as advance payment. The complainant was apprised that the trial course of four days would cost her Rs.13,920/- plus Rs.720/- for another medicine. The complainant paid the entire amount of        Rs.14,640/- against receipt dated 4.10.2013 for the four day trial. The trial period started on 4.10.2013. The medicine was to be applied to whole body thrice a day. Once at the premises of OPs  and twice at home. It was a whole day long process. But the complainant undertook it in the hope of her better health as was made to believe by OPs 2 and 3 and their associate Mr. Rajeev. The complainant was made to stop taking all the medicines which she was earlier taking on the prescription of AIIMS. All milk products were also banned by the OP.2. The complainant abided by all what she was told. The complainant was also apprised that the complete course of 42 sittings would cost her a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- plus the cost of another medicine namely Ur halt (Rs. 720/-). Complainant submitted that the true nature of the medicine was never apprised/ disclosed to the complainant by the OPs.
3. Complainant submits that each of the sittings continued for around two Hrs to three hours. The complainant  under the belief that she will be cured, would come all the way from Dwarka, New Delhi to Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, the place of OPs. Her husband would wait each day outside for hours together. After  four days of trial, the complainant found absolutely no improvement in her condition and she was not ready to take the complete course. It is at that stage, the OPs told her that this medicine does not respond in four days and if she wishes to get cured then 42 sittings are a must. They guaranteed that after 42 sittings there would be no symptoms of any diseases and for that she can get any tests done and if she found any symptoms of any diseases then her money would be refunded. OP.2 stated that the improvement would be visible only after 30-32 sittings and the complete cure would take 42 sittings.  Accordingly, the  complainant believing the OPs,  paid another Rs.5,000/- vide receipt no. 4656 and finally on 14.10.2013 made the entire payment of Rs.98,080/- through the SBI credit card. Entire payment of Rs.1,17,000/- was made by the complainant to the accused persons/OPs. It is at this point of time that the accused persons/OPs started showing their true colour.
4. Complainant submits that after receiving the entire payment, neither OP.1 cared to check the complainant nor any trained nurse/attendant was there to supervise the improvement. Untrained female nurses started to 'treat' the complainant. No Doctor was available in the entire OP.1. The condition of the complainant started deteriorating and the complainant made a complaint at the reception office of OP.1  and apprised the attendant there to call the Doctor for a review/check up immediately but there was none. Finally, a man, came for the first time (however, this man was also present on the first day i.e. on 3.10.2013, when the complainant came to visit OP.2 for the first time) who addressed himself as Doctor Sunil (without any name plate). As per complainant, this appeared to be only a makeshift arrangement. This Doctor Sunil purportedly checked her for the first time on 24.10.2013 (after around 21 days of  start of the so called treatment) and told  that less medicine has been given. It was astonishing for the complainant as all the medicines were being given by the OPs and the complainant was attending the OPs regularly for her 42 sittings. He allegedly directed the attendant there to pour more medicine and assured the complainant that her condition would improve. After this, this doctor also vanished and no review was done on the complainant and her condition never improved. After a lot of hue and cry and lot of complaints, this doctor again appeared on 07.11.2013 and made the same report and again assured the complainant that her condition would improve and asked her to have patience. But unfortunately, her condition starting deteriorating day by day.
5. Complainant completed 42 sittings on 02.12.2013 but there was absolutely no improvement. On the contrary, the complainant was crippled. Her knees stopped working/bending. She needed help to perform her daily chores. This situation was totally baffling and alarming whereas when she had earlier visited the accused persons/OPs for the first time on 3.10.2013 before undertaking the therapy, she was all on her knees and walking very smoothly almost like a normal person. Immediately, she was shown to a Doctor, Dr. Sanjay Singh and other tests were carried out. It was very alarming. The doctor opined her condition to be very critical and put her on very heavy medication. He also opined that this happened because she stopped taking medicines.
6. Complainant submitted that her husband again visited the OPs on 3.12.2013 and apprised the said Dr. Sunil about her condition. The said Dr. Sunil advised her to take yet another round of 42 sitting and again said that she will be cured permanently and asked her to pay for another 42 sittings. This was enough of him. When her husband objected to all this, he was threatened by the said Doctor Sunil and said Mr. Rajeev in the office of OPs. The complainant and her husband, then confronted said Dr. Sunil and  Mr. Rajeev (who were the only available persons at the OPs office and were told that since their promises have not been fulfilled and the condition of the complainant   has deteriorated, they must refund the money back to her. At this Mr. Rajeev threatened husband of complainant and handed over to him the alleged terms and conditions which were dated 14.10.2013 and forced him to sign for the said date i.e. 14.10.2013. The premises of  OPs are  under CCTV surveillance and this must have been recorded in the CCTV Camera. Complainant submitted that no terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant before the start of the treatment. The payment for the treatment was made at the Office of OPs and the alleged treatment was also undertaken at that Clinic of OPs after making payment by cash and from the SBI Credit card of the complainant.
7. According to complainant, the OPs and said Mr. Rajeev lured the complainant into getting the treatment at their Clinic by making  all false promises and made her to part with money and duped her of  nearly Rs.1,20,000/-( one lac twenty thousands) and also made her to suffer on other counts like she had to waste a daily three hours at the OP.1 clinic. They also threatened the husband of the complainant of dire consequences if he ever raised his voice against them.  Her husband had to attend to her, leaving his profession, being a lawyer) thereby suffered huge losses. The complainant demands a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the OPs. The OPs are jointly and severally liable for all the wrongs they have done to the complainant and made her to suffer.
8. Complainant submitted that she also gave a complaint to the police but no action was initiated by the police against the OPs as they are influential persons. The complainant also sent a legal notice to the OP company to get back the money and  compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- but no reply is received from the OPs. Hence the complainant is forced to file the present complaint.
9. Complainant prayed to  allow a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the OPs as compensation for the deficiency in service and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and her husband and to further direct the OPs to refund the money received from the complainant for the alleged treatment of Arthritis.
10. Complainant filed with the complaint, copy of complaint dated 24.12.2013 filed by her with the DCP, West District, New Delhi, copy of complaint given to SHO, Punjabi Bagh Police Station, New Delhi, copy of advertisement  issued by the OPs, copy of prescription dated 03.10.2013 given by OP.2 to complainant, copies of payment receipts No.004576,004582, both dated 03.10.2013 issued by  OPs in the sum of Rs.990/- and Rs.1000/- respectively in the name of complainant, copies of payment receipt Nos.004583  and 004584, both dated 04.10.2013 in the sum of Rs.720/- and Rs.13,920/- respectively by OPs in favour of complainant, copy of payment receipt dated 14.10.2013 in the sum of Rs.98080/- issued by OPs in favour of complainant, copy of trial package details for 4 days treatment, copy of details of treatment costs for different sittings, copy of consolidated payment receipt No.00001, dated 14.10.2013 in the sum of Rs.1,17,000/-, copy of clinic policy of OPs for treatment of patients, copies of path lab and x-ray reports in relation to complainant for the period from 22.6.2013 to 18.11.2013,  copies of treatment procedures and medicines given to the complainant during the period from 24.10.2013 to 18.11.2013, copies of medical prescriptions of AIIMS  and Dr. Sanjay Singh of Ortho Spine Clinic, Bahadurgarh.
11. Upon admission of the complaint on 25.02.2014, notice was issued to OPs 1 to 3 in terms of old memo of parties.  Pursuant to this, OPs 1 & 2 filed their reply on record.  As regards OP.3 in the old memo of parties, Mr. Rajeev Kumar, he was deleted from the array of parties vide orders dated 15.1.2016  on an application filed in this regard by the complainant.
12.  In the reply filed by OPs on record, it was submitted that the case pertains to the medical history of the complainant and, therefore, merits no reply. However it may be pointed out that the complainant herself admits that she has been patient of Osteo Arthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Hypothyroidism for more than 15 years and that even the Doctors at AIIMS told her that a cure for her was possible. Therefore, OPs submitted that it is a peculiar situation wherein the complainant has sought to make the OPs herein pay damages because she was not completely cured after a 42 sittings treatment.
13. OPs accepted that an advertisement was published on behalf of OPTM/OP.1 which highlighted some of the achievements of OP.2 as well as the experiences of 2 prominent persons who had undergone treatment under OP.1. It is further submitted that OPs primarily deal with Phyto Medicine and, therefore, treatment under OPs does not require oral intake of medicines, surgery, laser therapy or any of the conventional modes of treatment offered by other healthcare institutions. It is denied by OPs that any person associated with them used the advertisement to dishonestly lure either the complainant or any person. The achievements of Dr Ganguly/OP.2 were highlighted in the advertisement with a view to inform the public at large the credentials of OP.2 who is chairman of OPTM/OP.1
14. OPs admitted that the complainant  had  consulted OP.2 on 03.10.2013 after payment of requisite consultation fees and also that the complainant was informed about the requisite fees for the trial package and the complete course. However, it is denied by OPs that they ever sought to "brainwash" or coax the complainant into availing of the services of OPs.  It is further denied by the OPs that the complainant was given any guarantee/assurance that her condition would be totally cured upon completion of 42 sittings. In fact it is clearly written on the consultation slip/ paper that "We do not guarantee cure for any diseases. We only try to cure and give relief to patients".  It is however, admitted that the complainant was advised that she would have to discontinue any medication that she might have been taking if she opted for the treatment as provided by OPs and also that the complainant would have to refrain from consuming certain food products for best results. It is further reiterated by OPs that no one on behalf of them ever made any promises or gave assurances to the complainant in order to cause her to believe that OPs had a ready cure for her condition. In the course of the consultation, the complainant was apprised of the benefits of Phyto Medicine but no false promises were made to her by anyone on behalf of OPs. It is further denied by OPs that the complainant was not apprised about the treatment/procedure undertaken by OPs. In fact not only was the complainant given the necessary details regarding the nature of treatment provided by OPs but an option to avail of a 4 days trial package in order to fully acquaint herself with the nature/procedure of treatment provided by OPs.
15. OPs denied  except to the extent that the complaint was to come from Dwarka to Punjabi Bagh and that each sitting would last approximately 2 hours.  OPs submitted that the complainant was made fully aware of the fact that the 4 days trial package was only meant for the purpose of acquainting oneself with the procedures and nature of treatment as followed at OP.1. In fact it is clearly mentioned under the footnote in the clinic's Trial packages brochure that "You should understand that this is just a trial package to see the protocol/process........".   OPs termed the suggestion of complainant as absurd  that the OPs and one of the Directors of the OP No.1 would promise a potential client 100% cure when the consultation paper itself clearly states "We do not guarantee cure for any diseases. We only try to cure and give relief to patients."  Furthermore the OPs submitted that the allegation of the complainant that the OPs guaranteed to give her a full refund in case the treatment did not work, is inconsistent with the financial policy of OPs which was provided  to the complainant and which clearly states that there can be no refunds under all or any circumstances. Therefore it is absurd to make such an allegation.
16. OPs submitted that the complainant out of her own volition opted for the complete course of 42 sittings and accordingly paid a total of Rs 1,17,000/- to them. It is denied that the conduct of the OPs or any staff at OP.1 changed upon the complainant's payment of the full amount of fees. OPs submitted that the complainant was given the proper care and attention and the same is reflected in the periodical progress charts maintained by OP.1.  OPs submitted that it would not be possible for Dr. Apurba Ganguly/OP.2 who is the Chairman as well as Managing Director of OP.1 to personally attend to the complainant on a daily basis especially given the fact that his schedule requires a lot of travelling. It is submitted that it would be equally unreasonable on the part of the complainant to expect OP.2 to always be at her disposal. It is further submitted that the complainant was never promised/guaranteed OP.2’s  personal attention. It is also denied that there were no trained nurses/staff at the clinic during the time the complainant undertook her treatment from  OPs. In fact the various entries in the complainant's Review Sheet clearly suggest that she was under the supervision of competent/trained personnel. It is further denied by the OPs that no Doctor supervised the treatment that the complainant was undergoing. The complainant's own Review Sheet clearly shows that Dr. Sunil was regularly reviewing the complainant's progress. It is further denied that the dosage of medication as administered to the complainant was deficient. It is  submitted  by OPs that as per the procedure/protocol followed by OP.1 as admitted by the complainant herself in para 3 of the complaint, medicines are administered to patients thrice a day i.e. once at the OP.1 clinic and twice at home. It is further submitted that the complainant was not applying the prescribed dosage of medication and as a result it was time and again found that there was deficiency in the application of medication despite the fact that she was always given the requisite dosage of medication. It is further stated by OPs that the clinic pointed out this fact to the complainant as can be seen in the letters sent to the complainant between 24/10/2013 and 02/12/2013 on which the complainant herself put her signature.
17. OPs submitted that the Review Sheets of the complainant indicate that the complainant made some progress but the desired result was not seen due to deficiency in application of the prescribed medication. Furthermore it is medically improbable that the complainant could suddenly become a cripple sans especially in view of the reports as indicated in her Review Sheet at OP.1.  It is further submitted that the opinion of Dr Sanjay Singh would have to be deemed to be subjective sans any empirical evidence and therefore must be put to the strictest test. Furthermore, OPs denied that the complainant was in a "normal" state of health when she visited OP.1 clinic for the first time. It seems to be against sound reason for a person in such a fine health condition to visit a new health facility and discontinue the treatment at AIIMS, which supposedly worked so well, and further spend over Rupees one lac to avail of a new treatment.
18. OPs also denied that the complainant's husband was ever threatened by Dr. Sunil or Mr Rajeev on behalf of OPs. They also denied that any person on behalf of OP.1 ever suggested that the complainant should take another course of 42 sittings at OP.1.
19. OPs admitted to the extent that the complainant and her husband demanded a full refund but Mr Rajeev firmly denied such a proposition. It is  submitted by OPs that neither Dr Sunil nor Mr Rajeev ever had the intention or means to threaten any one at all especially a practicing High Court Advocate like the complainant's husband and it is also further denied either that Mr Rajeev forced the complainant's husband to sign any papers. OPs also submitted that the complainant is fully aware that CCTV footages of 3/12/2013 cannot be made available since the CCTV system is periodically rebooted, as is done in most commercial establishments. Thus taking advantage of this, the complainant seeks to dishonestly put the OPs in an awkward position.
20. According to OPs, no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant since the complaint and material averments made therein are nothing but figment of imagination of the complainant.  Whatever was paid by the complainant to the OPs were medical fees/bills lawfully payable to the OPs. OPs denied that they caused any  money loss to the complainant. It is also denied that the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant any amount whether jointly or severally as the present complaint is utterly frivolous and vexatious.
21. The OPs admitted to have  received a legal notice from the complainant's counsel calling upon the OPs to make payment of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. OPs, therefore, sought dismissal of the complaint for the foregoing reasons.
22. OPs filed with their reply, copy of the undated print out of routine prescription without carrying the name of complainant, copy of trial package details, copy of the regular treatment costs, clinic policy of OPs. Dated 14.10.2013 issued to the complainant, copy of treatment chart from 04.10.2013 to 02.12.2013,  copies of review sheets for the period 03.10.2013 to 02.12.2013, copy of treatment sheets dated 24.10.2013, 7.11.2013, 18.11.2013 and 02.12.2013 for the treatment taken by the complainant for the period from 04.10.2013 to 0212.2013.    
23. Being dissatisfied with the averments of OPs in their reply, complainant filed rejoinder and  denied the claims of OPs in toto.  Complainant submitted that the OPs have admitted that the complainant was suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis (RH) and Hypothyroidism and the cure of such types of diseases is not possible. Still, the OPs assured the complainant that they will cure her fully and that it is a matter of just 42 sittings at their clinic. They further made the complainant to believe their words by showing their treatment history of some prominent persons. More so, they exuded so much of confidence that they asked the complainant to stop all other medicines to get best results of their therapy. Believing their words, the complainant did stop all the medicines which she was taking under the treatment from AIIMS Hospital and this made the things worse  for the complainant. The complainant was not cured even after taking 42 sittings at the OPs Clinic. Complainant  mentioned  that she  was taking treatment from All India Institute of Medical Sciences ( AIIMS) for more than 15 years. The doctors at AIIMS always deprecated any attempt to stop the medicines under any circumstances in such types of diseases as they are incurable. It is however, vehemently denied that the nature of medicine were apprised to the complainant. Complainant also submitted that the complainant was also given some medicines for uptake after soaking in water overnight and to consume in the morning empty stomach. The Complainant vehemently denied that the treatment under OP.1 did not require oral intake of medicines. Complainant also denied that the OP.1’s Healthcare is being run by qualified doctors. It is submitted that neither OP.2 (who writes himself as self styled doctor) nor anybody under him is registered with the Medical Council of India. They are not authorized to write as doctors in strict legal sense.
24. Complainant submitted that OP.3 and  Mr. Rajeev on behalf of OPs  coaxed the complainant into purchasing the package of the OPs after assuring that she will get fully cured. It is vehemently denied that no one from the OP.1 ever made any promises or gave assurance to the complainant in order to cause her to believe OP.1 had a ready cure for her disease. Complainant stated with all stress that the OPs have assured the complainant that nowhere else in the entire world these diseases can be cured except at OP.1 clinic. They told  the complainant that she would have to take 42 sittings to get fully cured of her diseases meaning thereby to shell out Rs.1,17,000/- at their clinic. The complainant did exactly that. She paid the money but in return she got bed ridden after 42 sittings instead of getting cured. It is reiterated by the complainant  that the true nature of medicines was never apprised to the complainant.
25. Complainant denied that she was given proper care and attention by any qualified doctor. As a matter of fact, there was no qualified doctor at the OP.1 healthcare. OP.2/Mr.Apurva Ganguly, who claimed himself as a qualified doctor, shown green dreams to the complainant and fully assured her that she would be cured of her diseases, in fact he was never/is a qualified doctor. It is submitted that the complainant has also got lodged an FIR no. 620/14 at PS Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi under various sections of the IPC. During the investigation, it was revealed that the OPs have no worth degree which allows them to practice as a doctor. It is vehemently denied by the complainant  that OP.2 or for that matter  Mr. Sunil are qualified doctors and can extend treatment of patients of chronic diseases.
26. Complainant  also denied that she ever showed any progress during the process of taking the so called treatment  from OPs. On the contrary she became crippled after getting the so called treatment from OPs. It is stated that the complainant was taking treatment from AIIMS and the diseases were under control when she came to attend at OP.1 clinic on 3.10.2013. The doctors at AIIMS always stressed that the complainant's diseases are incurable and that they tried to keep them under control. The complainant was attracted to the advertisements of the OPS and went to them in search of a permanent cure for her ailment and spent nearly Rs.1,25,000/- and she was cheated at the hands of the OPs.
27. Complainant reiterated  with all force that the husband of the complainant was threatened by the said Mr. Rajeev and he forced him to sign some papers in back date. The CCTV footage of the office of the OPs is an evidence. Complainant stated that after receiving the notice dated 17.12.2013, the OPs have, in order to erase the evidence, wiped out the CCTV footage of  their office where the said Mr. Rajeev is seen giving threats to the husband of the complainant and forcing him to sign on some papers in back dates.
28. Complainant  reiterated the prayer clause made in the complaint.
29. Evidence by way of affidavit  was filed by the complainant and she exhibited the documents filed on record  as Ex.C.W.1/A to C.W.1/T.  Along with the evidence affidavit, complainant filed on record, copies of the treatment being taken by her at AIIMS, New Delhi and Ortho, Spine Clinic, run by Dr. Sanjay Singh, Bahadurgarh, copies of X-ray  and lab reports, copy of legal notice dated 17.12.2013 sent by husband of the complainant to OPs 1 to 3, copies of judicial proceedings held held by Mr. Pankaj Arora, MM-01, West Delhi, copy of FIR No.620 dated 24.07.2014, copy of prescription  of Action Cancer Hospital, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi showing complainant as suspected case of carcinoma left breast along with other clinical tests performed on the complainant., details of treatment taken by the complainant at the Action Cancer Hospital from 24.07.2015 to 19.04.2016 at regular intervals  for carcinoma left breast.  
30. OPs did not file evidence to prove the documents filed on record by them despite grant of opportunities.  Accordingly, OPs  were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 15.1.2016.
31. During proceedings of this case, it was felt by the previous Bench that this is apparently a case of medical negligence and opinion from Medical expert Board needs to be obtained by the complainant.  Accordingly vide orders dated 28.10.2016 it was ordered to seek medical opinion from the Medical Superintendent, DDU Hospital, New Delhi whether there was any medical negligence on the part of OPs in treating the complainant.  In compliance of orders of this Commission, The Medical Director, DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi gave the following report:

    “In compliance to your office letter No.1630 dated 09.02.2017 in respect to the subject cited above it is to inform you that a Medical Board was constituted and the meeting of members of the committee was held on 17.02.2017.  The case was examined.  The complaint is against OPTM Health Care, whose chairman is Shri Apurba Ganguly.  The degree of the Chairman i.e. Apurba Ganguly does not show any evidence of being a Allopathic Doctor i.e. MBBS.  As the treatment given to the complainant is not allopathic, no comments can be made over the type of treatment and whether there has been any medical negligence on the part of OPTM Health Care by this Medical Board.”

Therefore, based on the above report of the Medical Board of DDU Hospital, New Delhi, no evidence could be extracted whether OP.1 was  qualified Medical Doctor and also whether the treatment given to the complainant was proper or not.

32. At this stage it may also be noted that in the order dated 07.02.2019, it was also recorded  that the complainant in the meantime had expired on 21.12.2018 and an application  was filed by the husband of the complainant to bring on record her legal heirs as according to him the right to sue still survives against the OPs.  The said application was allowed on the said date and amended memo of parties filed thereafter  was taken on record.
33. Written arguments were filed by the complainant on record.  Oral arguments on behalf of the complainant  were addressed by Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate/husband of the deceased complainant.  Mr. Manohar Lal  submitted that the advertisement published by the OPs was misleading which  lured the complainant to take treatment from the OPs.  After taking the  wrong treatment from the OPs, his wife/complainant contracted cancer and ultimately died on 21.12.2018.  He reiterated the submissions made in the complaint and the written arguments.  It was submitted by Mr. Manohar Lal that  he had filed FIR against  OP.2 and the Police is not able to locate him as he is absconding.
34.  We find from the record that  pursuant to filing of the FIR by husband of the complainant, criminal proceedings were going on before the MM-01, West Delhi.  The final outcome of those proceedings is not known. 
35. We find  from the record that  complainant was an admitted case of Osteo Arthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis(RA) and Hypothyroidism and was taking regular treatment for the same from  AIIMS, New Delhi for the last 15 years.  Finding no lasting relief  from that treatment, the complainant was attracted towards the  advertisement issued  by the OPs in the newspaper and approached them for the treatment being given by them.    Though it was a duty cast on the complainant to have checked the veracity of the  treatment being given by the OPs but since the complainant was already almost fed up of the existing medical treatment being taken by her from the prestigious Medical Institute of Delhi, she saw a ray of hope for the cure in the OPs.  The receipt of fees in the sum of Rs.1,17,000/- is not in dispute as far as OPs are concerned.   We also do not find from the record that the OPs had anywhere  in black and white given any assurance to the complainant that they will be able to cure the complainant fully or in case of no cure being possible, they will refund the fees charged.  Further, in view of report of the Expert Medical Board of DDU Hospital, New Delhi, we    cannot agree with the contention of the complainant that there was medical negligence on the part of OPs as they were not found to be Medical Practitioners.  They were in fact using their own invented  Unique natural oils and cream to cure  various diseases, as per the report submitted by SI Sandeep Bishnoi, PS. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi      However, we are surprised to see the review sheets  attached by the OPs with their reply which show deficiency in consumption of medicine  by the complainant.  It is the allegation of the complainant that she was not being attended to properly at the clinic of OP.1 by the  Doctors and staff concerned.  However, the OPs denied the allegation and submitted  that proper treatment was being given to the complainant and she was regularly under the supervision of trained Doctors and staff.   It is an admitted fact that the complainant  was to take the treatment thrice daily, once at the clinic of OPs at Punjabi Bagh and two times at her home. If proper treatment was being given by the OPs at least once in their clinic, and there was deficiency in the consumption of medicine by the complainant, the OPs vide their letters dated 24.10.2013, 07.11.2013, 18.11.2013 and 02.12.2013 informed to the complainant about deficiency in consumption of medicines.    
36. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed as the complainant has failed to prove  that there was negligence and deficiency on the part of OPs.  Even otherwise, it is a settled law in medical jurisprudence that no relief does not amount to deficiency in service or  negligence.     

A copy of this order shall be supplied free of cost to parties to the dispute in the present complaint,upon a written requisition being made in writingin the name of President of the Commission in terms of Regulation 21 of the ConsumerProtection Regulations, 2020.

File be consigned to record room.

 

(Richa Jindal)                                      (Anil Kumar Koushal)                   (Sonica Mehrotra)

   Member                                           Member                                              President