Haryana

Kurukshetra

249/2017

Salochna Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.L.Arya - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Verma

09 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 249 of 2017.

Date of instt. 23.11.2017. 

                                                                  Date of Decision: 09.07.2019.

 

Salochna Devi wife of Shri Surjeet Singh, resident of village Mirchaheri, Post Office Bhagwanpur, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

Dr. R.L. Arya, Pranshi Health Care Kishangarh Road, Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra.

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. Naresh Verma, Advocate for complainant.               

 Sh. S.K. Goel, Advocate for opposite party.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Smt. Salochna Devi against Dr. R.L. Arya, the opposite party.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant had suffered fracture in her right arm in a road side accident on 3.5.2017 and the complainant took the treatment from the op who conducted treatment with plaster and with medicines and before treatment, the op had assured the complainant that arm of complainant will be cured and he demanded Rs.35,000/- for treatment. It is further averred that complainant paid Rs.35,000/- for the complete treatment of arm of complainant. The op had assured that within three months of the treatment, her arm will be restored in its actual position as it was earlier before the accident. That now a period of three months has already lapsed but the arm of complainant did not cover-up and as such there is great deficiency in service on the part of op. That the complainant approached the op and requested him to treat her right arm in a good manner and to restore the same but the op started to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and flatly refused to give further treatment to the complainant. It is further averred that due to above said act and conduct of op, the complainant suffered hardship and also suffered mental as well as physical harassment and also suffered huge financial loss. The complainant again approached the op and asked him either to treat the right arm of complainant and cure the same completely or to return back the amount of Rs.35,000/- alongwith Rs.2,00,000/- on account of harassment caused by op but the op refused to accept the genuine request of complainant. That thereafter, complainant issued a registered legal notice dated 16.8.2017 to the op but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present dispute and elaborate evidence which includes examination and cross examination of the witnesses are required which cannot be decided in the present summary proceedings. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has concealed the real facts from this Forum and has misrepresented the facts. Actually complainant came to the clinic of op on 24.5.2017 for the first time with history of injury on her right wrist and forearm suffered about 20 days back. She came with a desi patti applied on her wrist and forearm from some traditional bone settler. She was having an x-ray done at some other clinic. After examination, answering op found that complainant was having a fracture on her lower part of right radius bone which was intra-articular in nature and displaced to a little extent. At that time fracture was partially united with a gap between two pieces. As per standard method of treatment manipulative reduction under local anesthesia was done. It is further submitted that to immobilize the forearm and the wrist, POP was done which is the only well established treatment of such injury. Since 20 days had already passed when complainant came to the answering op, so there was little chances of further correction and entire things were made clear to the complainant. Initially POP was cast for one month. Complainant kept on coming to the answering op for follow up on 30.5.2017, 12.6.2017, 22.6.2017, 13.7.2017 and 25.7.2017. The progress was satisfactory. It is further submitted that on 22.6.2017, plaster was removed on the request of complainant and she was advised not to undertake hard work for further six months to avoid complaint of pain in her wrist. X-ray was done on 25.7.2017. The gap which was present in previous x-ray was found filled with calcium deposition. After 25.7.2017, complainant did not report to the answering op. The answering op has charged a sum of Rs.280/- for first visit, Rs.80/- for every follow visit from the complainant. A sum of Rs.250/- was also charged from the complainant on account of X-ray. Medicines were purchased by the complainant herself. The answering op never demanded a sum of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant as alleged and nor have received any such amount from the complainant. It is further submitted that answering op never assured the complainant for full recovery within a period of three months as alleged rather recovery depends on regular exercise, physiotherapy and refrain from undertaking hard work for a period of six months. Subsequent course of action is to be decided after period of six months. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of answering op in treating the complainant. The answering op had got Bachelor of Medicine & Surgery in 1980 from Maharishi Dayanand University Rohtak and was having registration with Haryana Medical Council since 13.1.1982. The answering op had also obtained diploma in Orthopedics in 1996 from the same University. The op had continuously served the Haryana Govt. in their various hospitals as medical officer and on other posts. The op is having more than 35 years experience of handling and treating such injuries. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11. On the other hand, learned counsel for op tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             It is the case of the complainant that she suffered fracture in her right arm in a road side accident on 3.5.2017. From the prescription slip of opposite party Ex.C4 placed on file by complainant, it is evident that complainant visited op’s hospital for the first time on 24.5.2017 meaning thereby that complainant visited the op’s hospital after 20 days of receiving the injury and according to the op when she visited him there was bandage applied on her wrist from some traditional bone settler. A board of doctors was ordered to be constituted on the application of complainant and they have submitted their report to the effect that during examination it was found that Smt. Salochna Devi suffered fracture (lower end radius) in right arm on 3.5.2017 and she got treatment from unqualified bone settler for three weeks and when there was no cure she got plaster from Dr. R.L. Arya and after plaster she regularly visited Dr. R.L. Arya and on 13.7.2017 plaster was removed but after removal of plaster there was no cure of pain and swelling and the patient did not contact Dr. R.L. Arya thereafter. The board of doctors further reported that after clinical examination of complainant, x-rays and statement of Dr. R.L. Arya, it was found that there is malunion radius and stiffness of fingers and the reason behind this is taking of treatment from unqualified bone settler and not taking of physiotherapy after removal of the plaster and this is a complication of fracture of arm and it cannot be said negligence. From the said report, it is evident that board of doctors did not find any medical negligence on the part of op doctor and they clearly mentioned the reason of non curing of the arm of the complainant that complainant initially took the treatment from local bone settler (Desi Vaid) for a long period of three weeks and then she did not get physiotherapy after removal of the plaster and also did not visit op doctor after removal of the plaster and therefore, complainant herself was negligent in taking treatment. The complainant has failed to prove any medical negligence of the op doctor through any reliable and cogent evidence rather it is proved on record that op doctor adopted standard method of treatment for the treatment of the complainant. In so far as charging of Rs.35,000/- by op doctor from complainant as alleged by complainant is concerned, the complainant has also not placed on file  even a single receipt/ bill of any amount charged by op doctor what to talk of Rs.35,000/-, whereas the op has placed on file copies of receipts of the amounts of Rs.330 for one time, Rs.80/- for four times and of Rs.280/- for one time as Ex.R6 as explained by the op in written statement. So, the allegation of complainant regarding charging of Rs.35,000/- is also not proved by the complainant through cogent and convincing evidence. The authority cited by learned counsel for op in case titled as Mam Chand vs. G.S. Mangat of Mangat Hospital, FA Nos. 590 and 621 of 1995 decided on 14.1.2004 (NC) and Vinitha Ashok vs. Lakshmi Hospital and others, CA No.2977 of 1992 decided on 25.9.2001 (SC) are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the other hand, the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant as V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and another, CA No.2641 of 2010 decided on 8.3.2010 is not applicable in the present case. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of op doctor towards the complainant.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.      

  

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 09.07.2019.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.