Punjab

Nawanshahr

RBT/CC/85/2013

Sunny Munish Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raja Super Speciality Hospital Mota Singh Rod, Near Civil Hosp.Nawanshahr - Opp.Party(s)

Jatin Sharma

20 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

                  

                               Consumer Complaint No.  27/2008

                               Date of Institution                   :   27.03.2008

R.B.R. No.                     :   85/2013        

Date of Institution                   :   18.06.2013      

Date of decision             :   20.03.2017

1.       Krishan Kumar Sharma S/o Lal Chand Sharma.

2.       Radha Rani W/o Krishan Kumar Sharma

          Both are resident of House No.79, Mohalla Phullian, Ward No.3, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.                                                         

                                                                    ….Complainants

Versus

1.       Raja Super Specialty Hospital, Mota Singh Road, Near Civil Hospital, Nawanshahr, through its Managing Director/Proprietor.

2.       Dr.Gopal K. Sharma, M.S.M. CH.DNB Consultant, Neurological and Spinal Surgeon, Raja Super Specialty Hospital, Mota Singh Road, Near Civil Hospital, Nawanshahr.

3.       Insurance Company of M/s Raja Super Specialty Hospital, Mota Singh Road, Near Civil Hospital, Nawanshahr, if any (to be disclosed by OP No.1&2).

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

ARGUED BY:

For complainants           :         Sh.Jatin Sharma, Advocate

For OP No.1                  :         Sh.S.S. Kundra, Advocate

For OP No.2.                 :         Ex parte.

For OP-3                       :         Sh.Santokh Singh, Advocate

 

QUORUM:

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 ORDER

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint remanded back by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh vide its order dated 31.05.2013, whereby directions have been given to this Forum to get amended complaint from complainants – Krishan Kumar Sharma & Radha Rani be substituted as legal heirs of deceased Sunny alias Munish Gautam and thereafter sufficient opportunities be afforded to file amended complaint and also given opportunities to lead evidence, then decided the complaint afresh. 
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that instance complaint filed by Krishan Kumar Sharma and Radha Rani being legal heirs of deceased Sunny alias Munish Gautam.  The son of the complainants i.e. Sunny Kumar aged 22 years was met with an accident on 20.04.2007.  The son of the complainants received serious multiple injuries on his person and his conditions was very serious and accordingly he was moved to Raja Super Specialty Hospital Nawanshahr i.e. OP-1 as the said hospital was known for treating such like injuries.  The son of the complainants was treated by OP No.1&2 and son of the complainants remained admitted in the hospital of OP No.1&2 from 20.04.2007 to 09.06.2007.  OP No.1&2 assured to the complainants that their son will be fully cured.
3. OP No.1&2 were negligent in treating the son of the complainants because during the period of hospitalization several bedsores were developed on the body of the son of the complainants.  If son of the complainants was treated carefully then several bedsores was not developed on the body of the complainant’s son.  Rs.5,00,000/- has been spent on the treatment of son of the complainants including hospitalization, attendants, expenses, out of which sum of Rs.1,95,550/- were charged by the OPs for hospitalization vide bill No.0592 dated 09.06.2007.  Although, son of the complainants having several bedsores on 09.06.2007 on his body but inspite of that he was discharged by OP No.1&2 on 09.06.2007, in very gross negligent manner.  After finding no alternative, son of the complainants was taken to Uppal Neuro Hospital, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar on very next day i.e. 10.06.2007, where he was treated for bedsores.  Son of complainants remained admitted there from 10.06.2007 to 13.09.2007.  At least, Uppal Neuro Hospital discharged the son of the complainants on 13.09.2007.  Sum of Rs.7,00,000/- were spend on the treatment & medicines etc for that period i.e. from 10.06.2007 to 13.09.2007 at Uppal Neuro Hospital, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar.  Out of which Rs.3,07,000/- were charged by the authority of Uppal Neuro Hospital, Amritsar vide bill dated 13.09.2007.  Even after, the discharge, the condition of the son of complainants was not good and he was completely bed ridden and he is unable to walk on his own as well as unable to speak and write.  On 08.07.2012, son of complainants has died and main reason to the death of the son of the complainants was bedsores only.  The bedsores developed on the body of son of the complainants was only due to the reason of the negligence on the part of OP No.1&2.  When the son of complainants admitted in the hospital of OP No.1&2, he himself and attendants of son of the complainants had been regularly complaining about the complications like bedsores etc, but OP No.1 &2 were always been put off by them on the pretext that the treatment is going very well and there is nothing to worry about anything.  It is clear case of medical negligence and deficiency of services on the part of OP No.1&2 and as such instant complaint filed with prayer that OP No.1&2 be directed to pay to complainants Rs.5,00,000/- spent on the treatment of their son - Sunny Kumar @ Munish Gautam during his hospitalization at Nawanshahr and also pay Rs.7,00,000/- spent on the treatment of Sunny Kumar for treating his bedsores at Uppal Hospital, Amritsar and also pay Rs.5,00,000/- as financial loss, mental tension and harassment suffered by complainants because of medical negligence on the part of OP No.1&2 and also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.  Further, OP No.1&2 be directed to pay interest @18% on the aforesaid amount from 20.04.2007. 
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OP No.1 filed written reply of amended complaint whereby complaint is contested by taking preliminary objections that instant complaint is not maintainable.  Even complainant has concealed true and material facts from this  Forum.  Hence, he is not entitled for any relief.  Entire patient record of the alleged treatment received by patient Sunny.  As per hospital record of the OPs there was no bedsores on the body of the patient Sunny, on the day of discharge from the hospital of replying OP.  The bedsores alleged by the complainants might have developed after the discharge from the hospital of replying OP.  The best medical assistance and treatment as prevalent in north India and as per strict compliance of medical profession and medical sciences was given to patient-Sunny.  Complainant was suggested to keep up the follow up treatment, inspite of strict medical advice, it was not done and patient was not brought for follow up, the treatment for the reasons best known to the complainant.  It is a meek attempt by the complainant to involve the reply OP in frivolous litigation and extort money from them.  Hence, the complaint deserves dismissal.  On merits, it is admitted that complainant was admitted in the hospital after about half an hour after the accident and at that time he was unconscious and his right ear was bleeding, B/L, Nasal bleeding, O/E. E1M2V1 respondent labored.  At that time Op No.2 – Dr.Gopal K. Sharma MS MCH DNB consultant Neurological and Spinal Surgeon started his treatment immediately thereafter.  The deceased remained admitted in the hospital from 20.04.2007 to 09.06.2007 and during his admission since he was serious on admission, he was immediately intubated and his CT brain showed large FTP acute SDH and under lying contusions leading to mid line shift, so the complainant was taken up for surgery i.e. left FTP oraniotmy, sub temporal decompression with evacuation of SDH done followed ventilator support in the post up period he again showed un-equality of pupils his CT brain was repeated which showed a large a right TP-EDH which was also evacuated.  After this patient made gradual recovery.  At the time of discharge he was advised regular physiotherapy and follow up treatment with medications.  Further, it is alleged that neither OP No.1 was negligent nor OP No.2 was negligent in treating the deceased.  At the time of discharge there were no bedsores on the recovery.  At the time of discharge he was advised regular physiotherapy and follow up treatment with medications.  The replying OP was never informed that the complainant had developed bedsores after the discharge from the hospital nor the replying OP has been ever informed that the complainant remained hospitalized thereafter since on discharge, the discharge slip was issued and at that time there were no bedsores on the body of the complainant.  Had there been the bed sores then the complainant and his attendants would have definitely informed the staff or OP No.2 and also OP-1.  It is further submitted that complainant remained admitted for quite a long period and he was treated in the best possible manner and without any negligence.  At the time of discharge the complainant had no bedsores on his body and lastly prayed that allegation made in the complaint by complainant is false and frivolous and has no merits and complaint is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
5. After remanded this complaint and despite service of notice OP-2 has not appeared and accordingly, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 29.10.2013.
6. Whereas, OP No.3 has filed written reply whereby complaint is contested by taking preliminary objections that instant complaint is not maintainable. Complaint is bad for non-joidner of insurer of Raja Super Specialty Hospital – OP-1.  Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true facts.  As such, he not entitled for any relief.  Further, intricate question of law and facts are involved, which require lengthy trial and hence this matter requires to be referred to Civil Court for adjudication.  On merits, all the allegations made in the complaint are empathically denied and lastly prayed that complaint of the complainants is without merits and liable to be dismissed.
7. In order to prove the complaint, counsel for complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-78 (as already in the file on dated 17.07.2008) and Ex.C-79 as certificate dated 18.09.2008 and closed the evidence.
8. Similarly, counsel for OP-1  ahs tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.Jaswinder Singh dated 09.12.2016 Ex.OP1/A, affidavit dated 19.12.2016 Ex.OP1/B, affidavit dated 15.05.2008 already exhibited as Ex.R-1 & affidavit of Dr.Gopal Krishan Sharma, as already exhibited as Ex.R-2  which may be read as part and parcel of evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and closed the evidence.  
9. Similarly, counsel for OP-3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ram Kishan, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.R-1, photocopy of insurance policy with terms and conditions Ex.R-2 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the contesting/respective parties and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
11. After considering the overall factum as put before us by the learned counsel for parties and after considering the same, we find that main contention of the complainant only is that complainant namely Sunny @ Munish Gautam was met with an accident on 20.04.2007 and admitted to hospital of OP No.1&2 where he treated by OP No.2 and during hospitalization of OP No.1&2, he was treated negligently and whereby numerous bedsores were developed on the body of the deceased – Sunny @ Munish Gautam.  Further, it is alleged that they have spent Rs.5,00,000/- on the treatment in the hospital of OP No.1&2 and thereafter OP No.1&2 discharge the complainant/deceased – Sunny @ Munish Gautam but at the time of discharge there was numerous bedsores and accordingly, he was admitted to Uppal Neuro Hospital, Amritsar, where the complainants have spend about Rs.7,00,000/- on the treatment and ultimately son of the complainants died on 08.07.2012 due to the reason of bedsores and as such they are entitled to get the treatment charges as well as compensation and litigation expenses. 
12. To the contrary, learned counsel for the OP-1 and OP No.3 categorically submitted that there was no negligence on the part of OP No.1.  Rather, best treatment was given to the deceased – Sunny @ Munish Gautam and at the time of discharge there was no bedsores on the body of the deceased.  Rather, same could be developed later on and even at the time of discharge, the deceased was advised for regular physiotherapy and follow up treatment with medications but for the best known reason the complainant was never come for follow up treatment and as such there is no negligence on the part of OP No.1 and OP No.3 and therefore the complaint is not maintainable against them. 
13. From the above fact, we find that the main allegation of the complainant is only that during admission of deceased – Sunny @ Munish Gautam bedsores were developed on his body due to negligence on the part of OP No.1&2 and OP No.3 is insurance company of OP No.1 and as such he is pleading for making payment of compensation.  In order to reaching the right conclusion that whether bedsores were developed due to negligence on the part of OP No.1&2 or not for that purpose, it is required for complainants to lead cogent evidence for the bedsores were developed while he admitted in the hospital of OP No.1, for that purpose, a discharge slip Ex.C-2 is an important document and in that document nowhere mentioned that there is any bedsores on the body of deceased-Sunny @ Munish Gautam, if virtually at the time of discharge there was any bedsores on the body of deceased then the same must be got recorded/mentioned by the complainant with pressurizing the hospital but it was not mentions.  So the version taken by OP No.1 in a written reply, that no bedsores were present on the body of the deceased – Sunny @ Munish Gautam at the time of discharge and if there was no bedsores and same would be developed later on and this version of the OP No.1, is somehow seems to be true because if there was any bedsores then why and for what purpose the deceased – Sunny @ Munish Gautam was got admitted in Neuro Hospital.  Similarly, he should be admitted in any hospital for the treatment for bedsores or skin disease and moreover the complainant has brought on record discharge slip of Uppal Hospital Amritsar.  It is duty of the complainants to brining on the file, the admission file of the deceased from Uppal Hospital if the factum regarding bedsores is mentioned in the admission file then we can presume that bedsores were developed in the hospital of OP No.1 from 20.04.2007 to  09.06.2007.  Similarly, non-brining on the file, the admission file is sufficient to assume that there was no bedsores on the body of the deceased – Sunny @ Munish Gautam at the time of admission in the Uppal Hospital Amritsar, if so then we come to conclusion that bedsores not developed during remain admitted in the hospital of the OP No.1. 
14. Apart from above the complainant has brought on record the discharge slip issued by Uppal Hospital, wherein it is mentioned regarding bedsores on the body of deceased but we find that discharge slip of Uppal Hospital is not sufficient documents to establish that bedsores were developed on the body of the deceased while he admitted in the hospital of OP No.1.  Rather, the deceased also remain admitted with Uppal Hospital from 10.06.2007 to 13.09.2007 and even it is not established that cause of death of the deceased was due to bedsores.  Rather, it is admitted case of the complainants i.e. deceased Sunny @ Munish Gautam met with an accident and multiple injuries received on the body of the deceased and his conditions was very serious when he admitted in Raja Hospital and rather brain surgery was advised and conducted by OP No.2.  So cause of death was not attributed due to bedsores.  Rather, it might due to head injury and even complainant could not able to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and therefore we do not find any force in the arguments advanced by counsel for complainant . 
15. Therefore, we found no merit in the complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. Complaint could not be decided wit hin stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
17. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 20.03.2017                                                         

 

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President