BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.44 of 2013

Date of Instt. 30.01.2013

Date of Decision :30.12.2014.

Gagandeep Singh son of Sukhwinder Singh R/o Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Orthonova Hospital, Nakodar Road, Bhargo Camp through its Chairman/M.D.

2. Dr.Prabh, Medical Officer, Orthonova Hospital, Nakodar Road, Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar.

3. Dr.Ranjit Singh, Medical Officer, Orthonova Hospital, Nakodar Road, Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar.

4. Dr.Harpreet Singh, Head/Chief of Orthonova Hospital, Nakodar Road, Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar.

5. The New India Assurance Company Ltd, H.O.#87, MG Road, Mumbai through its Chairman cum M.D.

6. The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Divisional Office-II, 356, GTB Nagar, Jalandhar through its Senior Divisional Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Brijesh Bakshi Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Manjit Kumar Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 to 4.

Sh.Raman Sharma Adv., counsel for OPs No.5 & 6.

Order

J.S. Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant met with an accident on 29.12.2012 at about 9.20 AM during working at the dairy and immediately his father took him to Orthonova Hospital, Nakodar Road, Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar and they reached there at about 9.30 PM. At that time Dr.Prabh, opposite party No.2 was present there. He had examined the finger of the complainant and even he also did scanning of the finger and he informed the complainant that his finger was alright. He had prescribed that certain stitches were required for proper treatment and he had also stitched the finger. He further directed the complainant to come after 3-4 days. On the next day i.e 30.12.2010(30.12.2012), the complainant felt lot of pain. As the complainant was suffering a lot of pain, as such he went to the Orthonova Hospital, again where Dr.Ranjit Singh, opposite party No.3 had met. He had gone through all the documents on the file of the complainant regarding treatment of the complainant and he thoroughly examined the complainant and prescribed certain medicines. After that he called the complainant after 3-4 days. On 3.1.2013 when the complainant went for the check-up as per the directions of both the doctors i.e opposite parties No.2 and 3, the complainant was called by Dr.Harpreet Singh, opposite party No.4. At about 1.30 PM he had examined the finger of the complainant and he directed the complainant to get the finger cut as the finer was in a poor condition. On hearing these words the complainant sustained lot of mental tension as he was earlier assured by the other two doctors of the hospital that there is nothing serious and his finger will be alright. Thereafter, the complainant went to Patel Hospital and after that City Hospital. After examination, each and every doctor prescribed to get the finger cut. The doctors had also informed the complainant that if the said finger was not cut, in that event the infection will increase to such an extent that whole of the hand would have to be cut to save the life of the complainant, meaning thereby it was a clear cut negligence on the part of the doctors of the opposite parties. On 4.1.2013 the complainant again went to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar where Dr.Saini who was serving there as Orthopeadic Surgeon had examined the finger of the right hand of the complainant and prescribed to get the finger cut and on 5.1.2013 the little finger of the right hand of the complainant was cut and the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 10.1.2013. On such like averments alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In their written reply, opposite parties No.1 and 4 pleaded that at the time of examination of the complainant by the opposite party No.2, the complainant was informed that there was serious damage to the finger of the complainant. Only a try could be made to save his finger. He was advised stitches on the injured portion, but the complainant did not get stitches from the opposite party. The complainant never came for any follow up as he was not registered as a patient. The medicines prescribed by the opposite party to the complainant were never consumed by the complainant. It is wrong that the complainant was called after 3-4 days as alleged. The complainant was asked to come at proper time, when the outdoor patients were checked by the opposite party No.4. The medicines prescribed by the opposite party are the best and proper medicines for the injury. Even otherwise, any part of the body is not amputated immediately, until and unless there is hope of recovery. The body part is amputated only when it start causing further loss to other part of the body. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party as alleged. As per averments of the complaint, the complainant got treatment from so many hospitals. The medicines were prescribed by the opposite party, while the treatment and amputation was got from other hospital. Since the finger was not amputated by the opposite party, so the opposite party can not say whether there was any valid reason for amputation of the finger. The opposite party No.4 never examined the complainant as alleged. They denied other material averments of the complainant and also took preliminary objections regarding maintainability, complainant being not consumer, non joinder of necessary parties, etc.

3. In their separate written reply, opposite parties No.5 and 6 pleaded that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties No.5 and 6. The opposite parties No.5 and 6 have insured the opposite party No.4 only vide policy No.36100036120400000016 for the period 6.6.2012 to 5.6.2013 under the Professional Indemnity Policy for Doctors for indemnifying the insured in the claims arising out of bodily injury and/or death of any patient caused by or alleged to have been caused by error, omission, or negligence in professional service rendered or which should had been rendered by the insured. In the present case, there is neither any error nor any omission or negligence on the part of the opposite party no.4, as such there is no liability of the opposite parties No.5 and 6 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C12 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 4 has tendered affidavits Ex.O1/A and Ex.O1/B and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for the opposite parties No.5 and 6 tendered affidavits Ex.OP6/A, Ex.OP6/B and Ex.OP6/C and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant met with an accident on 29.12.2012 during working at the dairy and he was immediately taken to opposite party No.1 hospital where opposite party No.2 examined the finger of the complainant and also did scanning and he informed him that his finger was alright. He further contended that certain stitches were applied to his finger and some medicines was also prescribed but on the next day i.e 30.12.2012 the complainant was having lot of pain and as such he went to opposite party No.1 hospital where opposite party No.3 met him and after examining him prescribed certain medicines. He further contended that he called the complainant after 3/4 days and when on 3.1.2013 the complainant went to opposite party No.1 hospital, opposite party No.4 Dr.Harpreet Singh examined his finger and told him that his finger is required to be amputated. He further contended that there was clear cut medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties No.1 to 4 in treating the finger of the complainant. He further contended that thereafter the complainant went to Patel Hospital and then to some other hospitals and lastly to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar where his little finger was amputated. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 4 that complainant had only visited the opposite party no.1 hospital as outdoor patient and certain medicines were prescribed to him but complainant never got stitches on his finger from the opposite party No.1 hospital. He further contended that at the time of examination the complainant was duly informed by opposite party No.2 that there was serious damage of his finger and only try could be given to save his finger and he was advised stitches on the injured portion but complainant did not get stitches from the opposite party. He further contended that certain medicines were prescribed to the complainant but thereafter the complainant never turned up for treatment. He contended that there was no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties No.1 to 4. He further contended that any part of the body is not amputated immediately on the first visit until and unless, there is no hope of recovery. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for the both the parties. The complainant has placed on record copy of scanning report Ex.C1 and prescription slip dated 29.12.2013 Ex.C2 of opposite party No.1 hospital. There was no fracture in the finger of the complainant. It is also not case of the complainant that there was any fracture in his little finger. As per prescription slip dated 29.12.2012 Ex.C2, the opposite party prescribed certain medicines including antibiotic to the complainant for five days. There is no other prescription of the opposite party No.1 hospital or any of its doctors. According to the complainant on the next day i.e 30.12.2012, he suffered lot of pain and as such he went to Orthonova Hospital i.e opposite party No.1 hospital where Dr.Ranjit Singh, opposite party No.3 met him and after thoroughly examining the documents on his file and further him prescribed certain medicines. The complainant has not produced any prescription slip which might have been issued by opposite party no.3 on 30.12.2013. The complainant has only produced prescription slip dated 29.12.2012. Further according to the complainant, the complainant has also visited Patel Hospital but he has not produced the record of Patel Hospital. In fact the complainant has visited several hospitals. He has produced on record prescription slip dated 3.1.2013 issued by City Hospital, prescription slip dated 3.1.2013 issued by Guru Teg Bahadur Charitable Hospital and then record of Civil Hospital, where his finger was amputated. Counsel for the complainant contended that gangrene developed in the finger of the complainant as the doctor of opposite party No.1 hospital applied stitches on his finger while it was bleeding. The opposite parties No.1 to 4 have denied that the complainant got stitches from their hospital as alleged. On the prescription slip dated 29.12.2012 Ex.C2, there is no mention of applying stitches on the finger of the complainant. Complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that the amputation of the finger of the complainant was result of any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties No.1 to 4. Simply on the basis of prescription slip dated 29.12.2012 Ex.C2 whereby certain medicines were prescribed to the complainant for 5 days, it can not be held that opposite parties No.1 to 4 were guilty of medical negligence in treating the complainant. According to the complainant he went to Patel Hospital and after that to City Hospital but the record of Patel Hospital is not available as the same was not produced by the complainant. So it is not clear as to what treatment was given to the complainant in Patel Hospital. Stitches on his finger might have been given at Patel Hospital. As already observed above that there is no mention of stitches on prescription slip of 29.12.2012 Ex.C2. Moreover, the opposite parties No.1 to 4 were not supposed to amputate the finger on the very first day of visit of the complainant to opposite party No.1 hospital. As per scan report Ex.C1, there was no fracture. The complainant was only treated as outdoor patient and certain medicines were prescribed to him for 5 days. The medicines prescribed to the complainant were antibiotic, pain killer etc. So it can not be said that opposite parties No.1 to 4 have prescribed some wrong medicines to the complainant. There is no reliable evidence on record to prove that the amputation of the little finger of the complainant was result of any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties No.1 to 4. On the basis of scanning report Ex.C1 and prescription slip dated 29.12.2012 Ex.C2, the opposite parties No.1 to 4 can not be held liable for medical negligence particularly in absence of any expert medical evidence.

8. . In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

30.12.2014 Member President