Haryana

StateCommission

A/559/2016

DR.S.P.BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VIVEK AGGARWAL

21 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 321 & 559 of 2016

Date of Institution: 12.04.2016 & 21.06.2016

Date of Decision: 21.09.2016

 

Appeal No.321 of 2016

 

1.      Ram Singh

2.      Nanhi Devi w/o Sh. Ram Singh

Now both Ram Singh and Nanhi Devi-deceased, through their legal representatives:  

i)        Mehar Singh s/o Sh. Ram Singh

ii)       Leela Devi d/o Sh. Ram Singh

iii)      Roshani Devi d/o Sh. Ram Singh

iv)      Shanti Devi d/o Sh. Ram Singh

v)      Laxmi Devi d/o Sh. Ram Singh

all Residents of Haibtpur, Indri, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Appellants-Complainants

Versus

1.      Dr. S.P. Bansal, Hospital Ladwa, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

2.      United India Insurance Company Limited, 54, Tolstoy Lane, DAB, Jan Path, New Delhi-110001.

3.      Apex Insurance Consultants Limited, 54, Basement, Vinod Puri Lajpat Nagar-II, Delhi-110024.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

Appeal No.559 of 2016

Dr. S.P. Bansal, Hospital Ladwa, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Ram Singh

2.      Nanhi Devi w/o Sh. Ram Singh

Now both Ram Singh and Nanhi Devi-deceased, through their legal representatives: 

i)        Mehar Singh s/o Sh. Ram Singh

ii)       Leela Devi d/o Sh. Ram Singh

iii)      Roshani Devi d/o Sh. Ram Singh

iv)      Shanti Devi d/o Sh. Ram Singh

v)      Laxmi Devi d/o Sh. Ram Singh

all Residents of Haibtpur, Indri, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Respondents-Complainants

3.      United India Insurance Company Limited, 54, Tolstoy Lane, DAB, Jan Path, New Delhi-110001.

4.      Apex Insurance Consultants Limited, 54, Basement, Vinod Puri Lajpat Nagar-II, Delhi-110024.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2&3

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Ravinder Malik, Advocate for complainants.

Shri V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate assisted by Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for Dr. S.P. Bansal-Opposite Party No.1.

Shri B.S. Taunque, Advocate for United India Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.2.

Shri Sahil Khunger, Advocate for Apex Insurance Consultants Limited-Opposite Party No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.321 and 559 of 2016 having arisen out of common order dated February 26^th, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’), in complaint No.558 of 2002 filed by Ram Singh and another-complainants (since deceased), represented by their legal representatives.

2.                On May 20^th, 2002, Kehar Singh (since deceased) son of complainants, having consumed some poisonous substance, was admitted in the hospital of Dr.S.P. Bansal-Opposite Party No.1. On May 21^st, 2002 the condition of Kehar Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the patient’) deteriorated. Thereafter, the patient was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ladwa, vide Bed Head Ticket Exhibit C-5, where he died.  Autopsy on the dead body of deceased was conducted on May 22^nd, 2002, vide Post Mortem Report Exhibit C-8. The complainants lodged First Information Report (FIR) No.88 dated 29.05.2002 (Exhibit C-7) under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Ladwa, against the opposite party No.1 (Dr. S.P. Bansal).

3.                The complainants filed complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that the opposite party No.1 was negligent in giving treatment due to which the patient died. It was further alleged that the opposite party No.1 did not inform the Police and thus committed deficiency in service.

4.                Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint. The opposite party No.1 in his written version took preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The death of deceased took place in Civil Hospital, Ladwa, however, Civil Hospital was not impleaded as party. It was further stated that once the criminal case was registered against the opposite party No.1, so the instant complaint was not maintainable.

5.                On merits, facts of the case are that the deceased had consumed Sulphos (poison); the opposite party No.1 had given highly advanced and sophisticated treatment during the period the patient remained admitted in his hospital. The opposite party No.1 is having well equipped hospital and other facilities of good quality besides the opposite party No.1 is a qualified and experienced doctor, having degree of MBBS, MD (General Medicine). The patient was shifted by attendants to Civil Hospital, Ladwa against the medical advice. Denying the allegations of the complainants, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                The Opposite Party No.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’), in its written version stated that the complainants did not produce any document to show that there was any negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 in treating the patient; so the complainants were not entitled for any compensation.

7.                The Opposite Party No.3 – Apex Insurance Consultants Limited, in its separately written version on the footings of written version of the opposite parties No.1 and 2, prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

8.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the opposite parties as under:-

“…………the complaint of the complainants is partly allowed and the Ops are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants on account of death of son of the deceased complainants, namely, Ram Singh and Nanhi Devi with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint which is 21.11.2002 till its payment. As both the original complainants have died and their five legal heirs have come on record, so the amount be paid to them in equal shares. It is made clear that though all the Ops are liable to compensate the complainants and as OP No.1 is insured with Ops No.2 & 3, who are fully liable to indemnify the OP No.1 and they are liable for payment of compensation. This order should be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.”

9.                Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, complainants have filed appeal No.321 of 2016 for enhancement of compensation and opposite party No.1 has filed appeal No.559 of 2016 for setting aside the impugned order.

10.              Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

11.              Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite party No.1 was convicted by the court in criminal case though he was acquitted in the appeal.

12.              Primarily, contention is raised that information (Rukka) was not sent to the Police despite the fact that the deceased had consumed Sulphos (poison) to commit suicide.

13.              The contention raised is not tenable. Rukka is not a part of treatment. There is no evidence on the record to prove negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 in treating the patient. The District Forum in its order has opined that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was not produced on the record, therefore the opposite party No.1 was deficient. This plea of the learned counsel for the complainants is meritless. It is not the duty of the doctor to place on record the report of FSL. However, this report has been placed on the record as Annexure P-2 in the appeal file and is also on file of District Forum. There is no evidence on the record to show that what was the negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 in giving treatment.  Allegation of medical negligence is a serious issue and it is for the person who sets up the case to prove negligence based on material on record or by way of evidence. The instant complaint is liable to be dismissed because the complainants have miserably failed to establish and prove any instance of medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Merely because the patient died and that too in Civil Hospital when he was not under the treatment of the opposite party No.1, so the doctor-opposite party No.1 cannot be said to be negligent. The complainants have not examined any doctor from the Civil Hospital to prove medical negligence against the opposite party No.1.

14.              In view of the above, appeal No.559 of 2016 filed by opposite party No.1 is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed. Consequently, appeal No.321 of 2016 filed by the complainant is dismissed.

15.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal No.559 of 2016 be refunded to the opposite party No.1 – Dr. S.P. Bansal, against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.  

Announced 21.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL