Haryana

Karnal

CC/276/2015

Amit Kumar S/o Balbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.R.P. Hospital Kidney Center & Blood Bank - Opp.Party(s)

R.D. Gautam

13 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.276 of 2015

                                                          Date of instt.: 9.11.2015

                                                          Date of decision: 12.01.2016

 

Amit Kumar son of Sh.Balbir Singh resident of village Manjura tehsil and District Karnal.                                                                                         

                                                                                 …..Complainant                                                                               Vs.

Dr.G.D.Sharma, Proprietor of P.R.P.Hospital Kidney Center and Blook Bank, Oppoiste Civil Hospital, Karnal.                                                            ……… Opposite Party

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:         Sh.R.D.Gautam Advocate for the complainant.

 

ORDER:

                    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

2.                 The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 23.8.2015, at about 6.00PM he was rushed to the hospital of the Opposite Party as half conscious.  He was admitted in the hospital and sent to Intensive Care Unit(  ICU) . The Opposite Party disclosed to his father that it was a case of  suspected consumption of poison.  Serum, Monocyt, MCHC, MCH , MCV, Eosinophil, PWD, MPV etc. tests were carried out.  Physical, Chemical  and Microscopic examinations were also done. He was kept continuously in ICU for five days, which was not mandatory, as no poisonous substance was detected  in any of the laboratory tests. However, he was kept in ICU in unconscious condition and his father and family members were not allowed to enter the ICU to see him.  Opposite Party gave him extra treatment, which was not essential. He should have been discharged within 36 or 48 hours, but under the greed the Opposite Party kept him admitted in the hospital till 30.8.2015, which was not warranted. Opposite Party also refused to give expenditure bill, hospital admission and treatment bill  and extorted Rs.95000/- in the name of hospital bill.  On demand of the hospital bill, the Opposite Party threatened him and his family members that if he would complain against the Opposite Party, his life would be spoiled by injecting some incurable virus. Thus, the Opposite Party committed punishable offences, deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, due  to which he suffered mental pain and harassment.   It has also been submitted that legal notice dated 17.9.2015 was served upon the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.95000/-, but the Opposite Party neither paid the amount nor gave any reply to the notice.

3.                 The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that Opposite Party kept the complainant in ICU for five days unnecessarily despite the fact that in the laboratory tests, no poisonous substance was detected. The complainant was admitted on 23.8.2015 and discharged on 30.8.2015. During that period he was given extra and unnecessary treatment just in order to extort more money from him. Even, no bill of charging an amount of Rs.95000/- was given to the complainant by the Opposite Party. Therefore, the acts of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in services and unfair trade  practice . In support of his contention, he placed reliance on  K.Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and Another 2010(2) CPC 647,  Sntokba Durlabhiji  Memorial Hospital and Medical Research Institute and another Vs.Bhanwar Lal 2012(2) CPC 401,  Uma Maansinghka and another Vs.Dr.Vijay  Bathwal and another IC(2010) CPJ 44 (NC) , Sukesh Jain Vs. Dr.Mukesh Jain and others 2010(1) CPC 449 and T.Rama Rao Vs.Vijay Hospital and another 2008(1) CLT 582.                

 4.                       In V.Kishan Rao’s case(Supra) the patient  suffering from intermittent fever and chills, was admitted in the hospital for treatment.  Treatment for  typhoid instead of malaria was given for four days, which resulted in death of  that  patient. That fact came to the notice when another hospital disclosed that  widal test for typhoid was negative, whereas test for malarial parasite was positive.  Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that case of medical negligence was well proved even without any evidence of medical expert.   In  Santokba Durlabhiji Memorial Hospital’s case (Supra) the complainant had been suffering pain in right leg/hip.  He was examined by the doctor and given treatment to hip joint without mentioning  any sign of  tuberculosis. Finding no relief, the complainant approached the another doctor, who found that the complainant was suffering from tuberculosis and the treatment given by the Opposite Party was not as per requirement. The Opposite Party submitted that as per biopsy report, there was no sign of tuberculosis, but the report was never produced.  Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that medical negligence was established. In Uma Mansingka’s case (Supra) the resident  doctor made a mistake of very serious nature in the discharge summary  because as against polypectomy operation,   it was stated that SMR was conducted. Such mistake  led to misleading the doctor during post operative phase. Under such circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National commission that nursing home was directly responsible  in allowing a junior resident doctor to prepare a discharge summary without consulting  operating doctor. Making a totally wrong mention  of surgery  is a serious lapse, which is an act of  negligence on the part of nursing home.    In  Sukesh Jain’s case (Supra) three doctors filed affidavits, which showed that operation was done on right hand of the complainant, whereas  actually surgery was done on the left hand. The  affidavits were filed blindly and the doctors were  not even clear as to on which hand operation was performed. Discharge summary was also not  clear about which arm was operated left or right.  Two discharge summary were produced, which  were different from each and one of them  showed “L-Ulnar”, whereas the alleged duplicated copy did not show “ L” before ulnar. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that wrong documentation, no documentation and non maintenance of documents of medical record is deficiency in services. It was also held that medical practioner should maintain record and the same be given to the patient or relative on their request without delay i.e. within 72 hours.    In T.Rama Rao’s case (Supra) the possibility of surgical intervention to remove blood clot from brain of the patient was not explored, which ultimately led to the death. No evidence was produced that  Neuro Physician or a Neurologist  attended the patient. The father of the patient demanded documents and the same were not delivered. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that non production of Neuro Physician or Neurologist   would draw adverse inference  that there was negligence in treating the patient  and her ailment was allowed to aggravate. Therefore, there was medical negligence. It was further held that as per  terms of  Regulation 1:2:3 relating  to  the  Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics issued by the Medical Counsel of India for registered medical practitioners, if father of the patient demand documents, non delivery of the same amounted to deviation from  expected professional conduct and amounted to deficiency in services.

5.                 There is no dispute regarding proposition of law laid down in the aforediscussed authorities, but the same do not render any help to the complainant under the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no allegation worth the name that the Opposite Party did not treat the complainant for the disease with which he was suffering and there was medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party in his treatment. The allegation is only to the effect that he was kept  in ICU for five days and given extra treatment, which was not required. No opinion of any medical professional has been produced which may show that treatment given by the Opposite Party was not required at all.  Mere, opinion of the complainant that he was given extra treatment and was unnecessarily kept in ICU for five days is not sufficient to establish  prima facie any medical negligence or deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party. It has  been alleged that bill of the hospital was not given to the complainant despite demand. When Opposite Party had given the discharge  card and reports of laboratory tests to the complainant, it does not appeal to the reason that Opposite Party  refused to give hospital bill. Had the bill not been given, the complainant could refuse to make payment. The  Complainant has alleged that he paid Rs.95000/- to Opposite Party, but no receipt regarding payment has been produced. The Opposite Party has given the discharge summary  having details of results of laboratory tests and summary of the treatment given to the complainant. The record of treatment on the basis of which summary was prepared must be in the hospital of the Opposite Party and  if the complainant wanted to get the same, he could make a request to the Opposite Party and in that case, the Opposite Party was bound to give the same to the complainant, but there is no allegation that any request for getting record of treatment  was ever made by the complainant or his relative to the Opposite Party.            

6.               In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has not been able to establish prima facie that there was any deficiency in service or medical negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Consequently, the complaint is rejected. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:12.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

Present:         Sh.R.D.Gautam Advocate for the complainant

 

                   Arguments heard on the point of maintainability of the complaint. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:12.01.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.