Haryana

StateCommission

A/136/2017

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANAJ DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

VINEET CHAUDHARY

08 Dec 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.136 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 03.02.2017

                                                          Date of final hearing: 08.12.2022

Date of pronouncement: 20.01.2023

 

Asian Institute of Medical Sciences, Near Badkhal Flyover Road, Sector-21A, Faridabad-121001 (Haryana) through its Legal Officer, Akhil Sharma.

…..Appellant

Versus

Smt. Rajan Devi W/o Late Sh. R.K. Gupta, R/o Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Faridabad.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.136 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 04.01.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.489 of 2012, which was allowed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.2011 complainant’s husband suffered breathing problem and was taken to OP No.1-hospital, where he got treatment as OPD patient. The hospital charged Rs.565/- in all. However the medicines did not provide any relief instead caused adverse reaction  so his condition further got deteriorated and this is how on 28.12.2011 they again visited the hospital-OP No.1 where he remained admitted from 28.12.2011 to 04.01.2012 and OP No. 2 conducted some sort of operation upon husband of complainant  without written consent/permission & knowledge of complainant or her family members and Rs.55,792/- were charged by OPs. But the condition of husband of complainant became severe, so on 04.01.2012 the patient was discharged from the hospital and the following day, the husband of the complainant expired on 05.01.2012.  Thus, there being deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, hence this complaint.

3.      In its written version, OPs raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, and complainant having not come with clean hands. On merit, OPs submitted that on 26.12.2011 OP No. 2 did not examine the husband of complainant, infact one Dr. Subrat Akhori examined him and was found to be suffering from bilateral pheumonia. OP No. 2 did not conduct any operation rather minor procedure was conducted by surgical team in the ICU after getting due consent from family on 30.12.2011. Thereafter the husband of the complainant was discharged on 04.01.2012, on the request of the complainant itself. Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Faridabad has allowed the complaint vide order dated 04.01.2017, which is as under:-

“As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 hospital.

10.    But the complainant failed to prove with cogent evidence that the complainant’s husband was operated by opposite party No. 2, therefore, the allegations leveled against opposite party No. 2 by the complainant in the present complaint are without any merit.

11.    Resultantly, the complaint is allowed against opposite party No.1. Opposite party No. 1 is directed to refund amount of Rs.55,792/- charged on the treatment of husband of complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of final bill i.e. 4.1.2012 till its realization and to pay Rs.20,000/- for mental tension agony as well as harassment besides Rs.5100/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.Vineet Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh. G.C. Shahpuri, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance entire record of the appeal as well as record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that on 30.12.2011, treating doctors of appellant-hospital performed minor surgery upon the patient in the ICU after obtaining consent from him. Thereafter, as a post surgical care, the patient was shifted back to ICU after successful surgery and due consent was obtained from Sh. Gaurav, son of the patient. On 04.01.2012 patient was discharged on the request of son of patient, who duly signed the discharge voucher. The patient never complained of any complications during his stay in the hospital and it is only subsequent to his demise that the complainant/respondent has started leveling false allegations of conducting wrong operation. The complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for. He placed his reliance upon authority of Hon’ble National Commission titled Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Patil and another Vs. Dr.Vinay Tule the Proprietor, 2017 (3) CPR 452 and opinion of this Commission titled Dr.Madhu Gupta Vs. Medanta, The Medicity 2017(2) CPUJ 138,  National Insurance company Limited Vs. Smt.Bedo Devi  2017 (3) CPJ 234 and opinion of Chhattisgarh State Commission titled Radha Sirmaur Vs.Shri Balaji Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (3) CPJ 1. 

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent argued that appellant conducted the operation of the husband of the complainant without his consent and after the operation, condition of the patient became serious. Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.  

9.                It is admitted that complainant’s husband remained admitted in the OP No.1 hospital.  It is also admitted that during his stay as indoor patient operation was conducted on 30.12.2011 by OP No.2. It is also admitted that patient was discharged on 04.01.2012 as per request of the family members only. It is also not disputed that the complainant paid final amount of Rs.55,792/-  Ex.C-8 to OP No.1. Perusal of the record shows that after patient was discharged on 04.01.2012  on the very next day, the husband of the complainant expired. The brief history of patient shows that he was suffering from bronchial asthma and his x-ray chest showed bilateral lower lobe consolidation and his TC were high (40,000) and after medication, the patient was normal. The plea of the appellant that operation was not conducted stood rejected and dispelled because perusal of the file shows that operation was conducted on 30.12.2011 by OP No.2 who is none but working with OP No.1 as medical officer.  The case laws relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the case in hand because the facts and circumstances of the cases are different.  The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 04.01.2017.  There is another aspect also for which the appeal deserves

 Dismissal. If we look at the original complaint, there were two opposite parties arrayed as such. Somehow of the other the learned District Commission allowed this complaint against OP No.1 only whereas no relief was allowed against OP No.2.  But we find that out for the said OPs only one of OP No.1 has filed this appeal without impleading the other OP No.2 as respondent alongwith original complainant. That being so this appeal has to fail for this reason also. The appeal is also devoid of merits for all these reasons and stands dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.              Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.              File be consigned to record room.

 

20^th January, 2023              Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)