Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/506/2018

Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital and Medical Research Institute - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajpal Singh s/o Ram Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Ashutosh Bhatia

13 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 506 /2018

 

Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital and Medical Research Institute, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur.

Vs.

Rajpal Singh ( since deceased ) his Lrs Ram Dulari & three ors. all r/o village Khedli Gadasiya, Tehsil Bayana Distt. Bharatpur.

 

 

Date of Order 13.8.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia counsel for the appellant

Mr. Ajay Singh counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd dated 25.6.2018 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the respondent diagnosed ulcer on cheek and on examination it was found that he had a deep, non-healing ulcerative lesion on right side of the back of his cheek in Retro-molar Trigone region. Biopsy was undergone and histopathological report suggested carcinoma. Thereafter insured admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur where also he undergone treatment for carcinoma and there is also evidence to the effect that he was treated for recurrance of carcinoma. Hence, the report given by the hospital cannot be said incorrect.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the claim has rightly been allowed. As per the report of the SMS Hospital, Jaipur the insured was not found suffering from cancer and no interference is needed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

3

 

There is no dispute about the fact that in the appellant's hospital the insured was disgnosed ulcer and biopsy was done. The histopathological report dated 26.2.2007 shows suspect of carcinoma. The report has been submitted before the Forum below as Ex. 6. Report of SMS Hospital, Jaipur Ex. 11 shows that there is no lymph nodes and no suspicion of carcinoma but appellant has rightly pointed out the prescription of Dr. Raj Govind Sharma Anx. A-III wherein on 2.3.2007 the insured was diagnosed carcinoma of right retro-molar trigone and as per discharge ticket of SMS Hospital, Jaipur the final diagnosis was carcinoma right retro-molar trigone and 2*1 cm part of maxillary bone chiseled out. The counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that as per report of ulcer no tumor tissue was seen but in bony report of maxillary bone carcinoma was found and purposely bony report given by SMS Hospital has not been submitted before the Forum below.

 

It may also be noted that on 29.4.2010 the complainant insured again diagnosed as recurrent oral carcinoma and clinical note also suggest that he was having history of surgery for right cheek carcinoma three years back with flap cover of the defect. These documents cumulatively suggest that insured

4

 

was suffering from carcinoma of his right cheek. Out of two histopathological report only one report was submitted before the Forum below whereas bony report has not been submitted. As per Ex. 6 soft tissue or 0.2 x 0.2 cm were taken and same part found suffering from carcinoma and as per operation notes that part of maxillary bone was taken out. Hence, no fault can be found in the report given by the hospital Ex. 6.

 

The contention of the respondent is that documents are fake one but nothing has been brought on record which could suggest that documents are fake one and respondent has accepted that insured was treated at SMS Hospital, Jaipur.

 

In view of the above ,the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 25.6.2018 is set aside.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

nm