BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR
Complaint No.201 of 2020
Date of Instt. 20.07.2020
Date of Decision: 09.03.2021
Ex.Harvildar Ram Singh, age 76 years son of S.Sant Singh, resident of House No.41, Mehnga Singh Colony Road, Old Phagwara Road, Deep Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Patel Hospital, Civil Lines, Jalandhar 144001, through its authorized person/Doctor Incharge/Authorized Signatory.
2. Dr.Swapan Sood, M.S.CH (A.l.l.M.S) of Patel Hospital, Civil Lines, Jalandhar.
3. Dr.Suresh Aggarwal, M.S.D.N.B of Patel Hospital, Civil Lines, Jalandhar.
4. Dr. Satinderpal Aggarwal, M.S.M.CH of Patel Hospital, Civil Lines, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Vikas Kumar Gupta, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 to 4.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is retired from Army 76 years old, he fell seriously sick on 11.02.2019 and telephonically informing Military Hospital Jalandhar Cantt reported in emergency ward of Patel Hospital Jalandhar. This hospital is empanelled hospital and this hospital is responsible to afford treatment to all ECHS members and their dependents. On admission, the complainant was diagnosed acute renal failure, chronic failure, essential hypertension, diabetic mellitus and ischaemic heart disease. Right ureteric connulated with 0.35 straight tip guidwire and 6x26 DJ stent inserted into right and left kidneys and NCCT KUB done to drain out urine. On 15.02.2019, OPs without giving proper treatment to him alleged that he is being discharged in satisfactory condition with bilateral double J stent in situ and without removing NCCT KUB. On completion of 12 days OPD treatment, the complainant was first time referred to Patel Hospital Jalandhar vide ECHS Polyclinic Jalandhar referral no.PCO-11/28/2/2019/11330 dated 28.02.2019. On completion of 10 days OPD treatment, he was second time referred to Patel Hospital Jalandhar vide ECHS Polyclinic Jalandhar Cantt vide referral no.PCO-11/27/3/20/9/11768 dated 27.03.2019 and returned with another 10 days medicines i.e. Tab UT Run 10D x 10 days and (b) Cap Nitorun 10D x 10 days, third time referred to on 20.04.2019 and forth time referred him on 29.04.2019. During the period of treatment, various medicines were purchased by the complainant, detail of which is mentioned in para no.11 of the complaint. Legal notice dated 17.03.2020 was served upon OPs but of no use. Due to act and conduct of OPs, he has filed the present complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, Rs.43,764/- cost of medicines and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was averred that OP/Patel Hospital is the empanelled hospital with ECHS and guidelines are issued by Ministry of Defense. During hospitalization the patient/ complainant managed with iv fluids, iv antibiotics and inotripic supportive. Urine and blood sent for culture and sensitivity, reports awaited. Cardiologist (Dr. Naveen Khanna) consultation was taken and managed conservatively. Tropt-T was done showed negative reports. Nephrologists (Dr.Manoj Chaudhary) consultation was taken for blood sugar level and managed conservatively. NCCT KUB done on 12.02.2019. Patient was put in lithotomy position. The area between umbilicus and mid thigh was prepared. Under anesthesia, cystoscope was inserted into the urethra. Urethra is normal. Right ureteric orifice is normal Left ureteric orifice is normal Bladder walls are normal, bladder capacity is normal. Pus flaks present is bladder. Left ureteric orifice was cannulated with 0.035 straight tip guidewire and 6x26 Dj sent inserted into left side kidney over guidewire. During hospital stay, patient was managed with iv fluids, inotropic support, antibiotics and other supportive treatment. At the time of discharge, patient/complainant was duly informed of future plan of treatment and he was advised bilateral ureteroscopy with double J stent removal will done after 20 days, and he was advised to get permission for the same from ECHS polyclinic and was advised follow up after 12 days on 27.02.2019 with CBC, S. Creatinine and Electrolytes. Thereafter, he was visited Patel Hospital on 01.03.2019 and after due examination, some tests were conducted. As per examination of patient, condition of patient was found satisfactory and required medicines were prescribed to him. Thereafter complainant visited Patel Hospital on 29.03.2019 and after due examination and investigations, he was referred to Diebetologist, Dr. Daljit for good control of DM and patient was found satisfactory. On 22.04.2019 after due investigation, he was advised to get permission for removal of stent. On 03.05.2019, his DJ stent was removed and discharged same day and required medicines were prescribed to him. OPs denied any deficiency or negligence on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A in support of his case along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-24. On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Swapan Sood working with Patel Hospital as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully.
5. The glance at evidence is required by us to settle the controversy in this case. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA on the record in support of his case. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Ex.C-1 is copy of policy on duration of hospitalization. Ex.C-2 is copy of discharge summary. Ex.C-4 is copy of referral form. Ex.C-5 is copy of prescription slip issued by Department of Urology Patel Hospital Jalandhar. Ex.C-6 is copy of referral form. Ex.C-7 is copy of prescription slip. Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-11 are copies of prescription slips and referral forms of different dates. Ex.C-12 is copy of ECHS Card issued in the name of complainant. Ex.C-13 is copy of tax invoice. Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-19 are payments receipts for purchasing of medicines of different dates. Ex.20 is copy of legal notice dated 17.03.2020. Ex.C-21 to Ex.C-24 are postal receipts thereof.
6. To refute this evidence of complainant, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Swapan Sood working with Patel Hospital as Ex.OP-A on the record. This witness denied any deficiency and negligence on the part of OPs. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 are copies of referral forms. Ex.OP-5 is copy of revision of guidelines regarding simplification of referral systems under ECHS. Ex.C-6 is copy of medical procedure and claim related.
7. It is an admitted fact that complainant get the treatment from Patel Hospital i.e. empanelled hospital. In the present case, there are two discrepancies on the part of OPs alleged by the complainant. Firstly, OPs not provide proper medical services to him or secondly OPs charged payment for medicines. Both allegations are baseless because complainant is an ex-serviceman from Army and Patel Hospital/OP given treatment to him as per ECHS norms. Ex.OP-5 is vital document on the record. In which it is clearly mentioned that “medicines prescribed will be collected from polyclinic.” So, this fact is proved that the complainant should collect the medicines from polyclinic and not from the chemists shop. The complainant has not produced any bill regarding to give payment to OPs hospital for his treatment but only produced on record copies of payment receipts regarding purchase of medicines. The fact of purchase of medicine from chemist shop is not genuine. As per ECHS norms produced on record Ex.OP-5 the prescribed medicines should be collected by patient/complainant from polyclinic only. There is no expert body's report on the file by the complainant to prove any medical negligence against OPs. From perusal of entire record, it is clear that Patel Hospital/OPs gave proper treatment as per ECHS Norms. The complainant has not proved by means of any expert doctor that OPs prescribed this treatment against medical protocol. There is simple oral evidence of the complainant, which is not sufficient in our opinion to charge the Ops with civil liability for compensation on account of their alleged medical negligence. Even Apex Court has also held in "Kusum Sharma and others versus Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre and others," reported in 2010(2) CLT that doctor who performed the operation had reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and hence no medical negligence is proved against him. The Apex Court has held in this authority has held that the Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. A medical practitioner would be liable only, where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession, if no doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck. There is nothing on the record that OPs were not qualified doctors or they have not followed the medical protocol, while prescribing the treatment of tuberculosis to life assured In the absence of expert doctor's report, we are unable to rely upon the bald submissions of complainant in this regard, who is not an medical expert person in the medical science, attributing medical negligence to OPs.
8. In the light of our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that we find no substance in the allegations leveled by complainant raised on behalf of OPs. As such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order of costs.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
9th of March 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
