THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 913 of 12
Date of Institution : 18.12.2012
Date of Decision : 13-05-2015
Inderjit Singh son of S. Hardev Singh, resident of Plot No. 46, Gali No.9/1 , New Mohini Park, Opposite Khalsa College, Amritsar.
...Complainant
Versus
- Ranjit Hospital, G.T. Road, Putlighar, Amritsar through its Authorized Signatory/Principal Officer thereof.
- Dr. Manpreet Singh (M.S.) Ranjit Hospital, G.T. Road, Putlighar, Amritsar
- Dr.B.B.Goyal, visiting doctor (Surgeon) Ranjit Hospital, G.T. Road, Putlighar, Amritsar
- United India Insurance Company Ltd., S4, Janpath, Cannaught Place, New Delhi
....Opposite parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Gaurav Kapoor, Advocate.
For the opposite parties No.1 & 2 : Sh. Shashiveer Sharma, Advocate.
For opposite parties No. 3 & 4 : Sh. A.K.Popal, Advocate.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member.
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1. Present complaint has been filed by Inderjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he met with road accident on 28.7.2012 at about 3.45 p.m and suffered certain internal injury at the right hip . The complainant was taken to opposite party No.1 hospital, where opposite party No.2 namely Dr. Manpreet Singh admitted the complainant and treatment was started. At the time of admission, opposite party No.2 suggested the family members of the complainant various scans on the complainant for proper treatment from the centre of choice of opposite party No.2. The complainant was taken to Advanced Diagnostics at Kennedy Avenue, Mall Road, Amritsar for conducting scans on complainant. After considering the report of scans of the complainant, opposite party No.2 opined that the complainant suffered fracture . Opposite party No.2 also called opposite party No.3 Dr. B.B. Goyal and one another doctor for consultation/treatment of the complainant. Even after four days of treatment the complainant could not recover rather the family members of the complainant were compelled to spend huge amount on lab tests/scans and other tests from the centre of the choice of opposite party No.2. Complainant has alleged that when copy of record of prescription and drugs administered to the patient were demanded from opposite party No.2 and the concerned authorities of the hospital, they refused to give the same. When the complainant could not recover even after 4 days of admission, a surgery was conducted on complainant. Consent of the family members of the complainant were never obtained at the time of surgery. Thereafter the condition of the complainant deteriorated due to not taking proper post operative care due to which infection/ septicemia in the body of complainant developed due to mismanaged by the opposite parties. It was submitted that opposite party No.2 did not take reasonable care to treat the complainant and the hospital authorities treated the complainant in unhygienic condition. After 12 days i.e. on 8.8.2012 opposite party No.2 declared that the case of the complainant as out of his control and further stated that the condition of the complainant is serious having threat to his life and the family members of the complainant were compelled to take/shift the complainant out of opposite party No.1 hospital and the case of the complainant was referred to CMC, Ludhiana or somewhere else by opposite party No.2. The complainant was discharged from opposite party No.1 by opposite party No.2 under fear on 8.8.2012 at about 9.45 p.m. The family members of the complainant took the complainant in an unconscious condition to the New hospital namely Amandeep Hospital, G.T. Road, Amritsar for saving the life of the complainant where he remained admitted in ICU on the same night and on the next day i.e. 9.8.2012 around 1.00 p.m, a life saving surgery was conducted on the complainant for about 6-7 hours. From 8.8.2012 to 15.9.2012 and further from 25.9.2012 to 3.10.2012 complainant remained admitted in Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar and more surgeries were conducted on the complainant and huge amount was spent on the treatment of the complainant for which the opposite parties are liable. The complainant and his family members have spent more than Rs. 8,00,000/- on the treatment of the complainant and is in recovery stage and is still incurring expenses on his treatment . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service as well as negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-. Compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that opposite party No.3 has been unnecessarily dragged in the case as he is only a visiting doctor in the hospital for emergency cases. Opposite party No.3 is the retired professor of surgery from the Govt. Medical College, Amritsar from 1971 to 2005. It was submitted that complainant was badly crushed by running over a truck and his abdomen had been badly damaged and no one was prepared to admit the complainant in his hospital for his treatment due to his serious condition as it was also a police case. On the request of the people at large complainant was got admitted in the hospital. He had internal injuries on his buttocks and abdomen. When the complainant was admitted in the hospital, he was in a critical condition and the blood was oozing from his body in large scale and his heart beating was 126 meaning thereby that he was not normal and the blood was oozing from his body and his pelvis was fractured. After intensive treatment from the said hospital the patient became stable after two hours and he was kept in ICU for a sufficiently long time. The nature of the injuries were of such a nature that it could take two months to heal the same. In case the complainant was not given the treatment within 15 minutes he would have died. The treatment given to the complainant was quite OK and as such the life of the complainant had been saved. The nature of the injuries on the complainant was of such nature that infection was bound to occur in his body after a short gap of time. It was rather submitted that complainant had not deposited full fee and he left the hospital without informing the hospital authorities and without payment of full amount on 8.8.2012 when they came to know that the life of the patient had been saved. No ambulance was brought to take the complainant home which was risky and he was taken to the house in a two-wheeler. The treatment allegedly taken by the complainant from Amandeep Hospital was of the same nature which he had got from the hospital of the opposite parties and there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. No major surgery of the complainant had taken place. Skin grafting is not the major surgery and the same is a part of the treatment. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that answering opposite party i.e. Dr. B.B.Goyal has retired from Govt.Medical College, Amritsar as professor of surgery in 2005. Answering opposite party is having an experience as a surgeon for more than 32 years. Opposite party was called to examine the complainant on 29.7.2012. After proper examination the opposite party found that the complainant's condition was stable and was receiving proper medical treatment. Opposite party was again called on 3.8.2012 to see the patient. After proper examination the answering opposite party found that the patient had developed gangrene of skin over flanks, perineum and thighs with collection of blood underneath. Opposite party advised removal of dead skin i.e. debridement and drainage of blood. The skin changes and drainage of collection of blood was delayed as an effect of crush injury and contamination of wound at the site of accident. On the same day debridement of wounds and drainage of blood was done under general anaesthesia after taking all necessary precautions and the treatment was complete without any problem. It was submitted that the attendants of the complainant were informed that the complainant will need repeated debridement and daily dressing. It was also informed that when the wounds are healthy the patient will need skin grafting which will be done by plastic surgeon and it may take 3 to 4 weeks to become the wounds worth skin grafting. Answering opposite party was further called to examine the dressing on 5.8.2012, 6.8.2012 and 8.8.2012 and at that time healing of wound was satisfactory. After that the answering opposite party never saw the patient as complainant had voluntarily left the hospital on 8.8.2012. While submitted that there is no deficiency of service or medical negligence on the part of opposite party No.3 as he gave the treatment to the patient with proper care, due diligence and as per the set medical standards and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite party No.4 in its written version has submitted that they had issued Professional Indemnity Policy No.040100/46/12/35/00002110 effective from 17.6.2012 to 16.6.2013 to opposite party No.3 with standard terms and conditions of the policy.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents i.e. income tax returns alongwith its computation Ex.C1 to Ex.C5, affidavit of Gaurav Mahajan Ex.C6/A, another affidavit of complainant Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Ex.C6/B to Ex.C223.
6. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.B.B.Goyal Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/11 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Similarly, Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.3 and 4.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant Inderjit Singh met with roadside accident on 28.7.2012 and suffered injuries at the right hip. The complainant was taken to opposite party No.1 hospital, where opposite party No.2 Dr. Manpreet Singh admitted the complainant in opposite party No.1 hospital and started treatment. Opposite party No.2 suggested to the family members of the complainant various scans on complainant for proper treatment. Accordingly, the complainant was taken to Advanced Diagnostics, Kennedy Avenue, Mall Road, Amritsar for scanning. After considering the report of scan dated 28.7.2012 exbt.C-191 of the complainant, opposite party No.2 opined that complainant suffered fracture. Opposite party No.2 also called opposite party No.3 Dr. B.B. Goyal and one another doctor for consultation/ treatment of the complainant. The complainant alleges that even after 4 days of treatment, complainant could not recover rather the family members of the complainant were compelled to spend huge amount on Lab tests/scans and other tests from the centre of choice of opposite party No.2 nor the opposite parties supplied the prescription slips of the drugs administered to the complainant. Finally surgery was conducted on complainant. But after surgery, the condition of the complainant deteriorated as proper post operative care was not taken by the opposite parties due to which infection/ septicaemia in the body of the complainant developed because the complainant was treated in un-hygienic condition. After 12 days i.e. on 8.8.2012 opposite party No.2 stated that the condition of the complainant is serious having threat to his life and he told the family members of the complainant to take/shift the complainant out of opposite party No.1 hospital and the case of the complainant was referred to CMC, Ludhiana or somewhere else. Opposite parties also refused to hand over the treatment record or the discharge summary of the complainant, to the complainant or his family members. The complainant was finally discharged from opposite party No.1 hospital on 8.8.2012 at about 9.45 p.m when the complainant was in critical condition due to gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The family members of the complainant then took the complainant in un-conscious condition to Amandeep Hospital, G.T. Road, Amritsar for saving the life of the complainant where he remained admitted in ICU on the same night and on the next day i.e on 9.8.2012 at about 1.00 p.m another life saving surgery was conducted on the complainant for about 6-7 hours. The complainant remained admitted at Amandeep Hospital from 8.8.2012 to 15.9.2012 and further from 25.9.2012 to 3.10.2012 in Amandeep Hospital. During this period some other surgeries were also conducted on the complainant and the complainant/his family members have to spend huge amount on the treatment of the complainant for which the opposite parties are liable. The complainant alleges that opposite party No.2 Manpreet Singh prolonged the admission of the complainant with opposite party No.1 just to extract money from the family members of the complainant, which is against the medical ethics. Not only this, family members of the complainant were also not provided with the complete medical record of the complainant. The family members of the complainant had spent more than Rs. 8,00,000/- on the treatment of the complainant and still the complainant is in recovery stage and is incurring expenses on his treatment and all this happened due to medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service and the complainant suffered huge loss physically, mentally as well as financially due to medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas the case of opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that opposite party No.3 has been unnecessarily dragged in this case. He has nothing to do with opposite party No.1 hospital as well as opposite party No.2. He is only a visiting doctor in the said hospital in emergency cases. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 submitted that complainant was badly crushed by the truck in accident. His abdomen and right thigh had been badly damaged. No one was prepared to admit the complainant in his hospital for his treatment due to serious condition. Moreover, it was also a police case. However, on the request of the people at large, complainant was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital. The complainant had internal injuries on his buttocks and abdomen. When he was admitted in the hospital he was in a critical condition, the blood was oozing from his body in large scale, his heart beating was 126; meaning thereby he was not normal. The pelvis was fractured badly. After intensive treatment at opposite party No.1 hospital, the patient became stable after 2 hours. He was kept in ICU for a sufficiently long time. The nature of the injuries was such that it could take two months to heal the same. In case the complainant was not given treatment within 15 minutes, he would have expired. The treatment given to the complainant at opposite party No.1 hospital was quite OK and standard line, as such the life of the complainant had been saved. There was possibility of infection in his body after short gap of time. So the complainant was treated effectively and on standard lines. However, the complainant and his family members had not deposited full fee with opposite party No.1 hospital and left the hospital without informing the hospital authorities and without making payment of full amount on 8.8.2012 when they came to know that the life of the patient had been saved. No Ambulance was brought to take the complainant to home which was risky on their part. The treatment allegedly taken by the complainant from Amandeep Hospital was of the same nature which he has got at opposite party No.1 hospital. During the admission of the complainant at opposite party No.1 hospital, he was treated very nicely by the doctors as well as the staff of the hospital and there was no complaint from the side of the relatives/family members of the complainant. The complainant was taken away from opposite party No.1 hospital without the consent of the hospital authorities and without payment of the bills of the opposite parties. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 denied that the complainant was taken in Ambulance to Amandeep Hospital rather he was taken on two-wheeler by his attendants without informing the opposite party No.1 hospital authorities. They denied that the family members of the complainant had spent about Rs. 8,00,000/- on his treatment. Ld.counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 submitted that there is neither deficiency of service nor any medical negligence on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 in the treatment of the complainant.
10. Whereas the case of opposite party No.3 is that he has retired from Govt.Medical College , Amritsar as Professor of Surgery in 2005. He has experience as surgeon for more than 32 years. He is not the employee of opposite party No.1 hospital. He is only a visiting surgeon at opposite party No.1 hospital. He was called by opposite party No.1 hospital authorities to examine the complainant on 29.7.2012. After proper examination, he found that the complainant's condition was stable and was receiving proper medical treatment. Opposite party No.3 was again called on 3.8.2012 to see the patient and after proper examination he found that the patient had developed gangrene of skin over flanks, perineum and thighs with collection of blood underneath. Therefore, he advised the removal of dead skin i.e. debridement and drainage of blood. The skin changes and collection of blood was delayed as an effect of crush injury and contamination of wound at the site of accident. On the same day debridement of wounds and drainage of blood was done under general anaesthesia after taking all necessary precautions. The treatment was complete without any problem. The attendants of the patient were informed that the patient will need repeated debridement and daily dressing .They were also informed that when the wounds are healthy the patient will need skin grafting which will be done by plastic surgeon and it will take 3-4 weeks to become the wounds worth skin grafting. He (Opposite Party No.3) was further called to examine the dressing on 5.8.2012, 6.8.2012 and 8.8.2012 and at that time after proper examination of the complainant he found that healing of wound was satisfactory. Thereafter opposite party No.3 never saw the patient/complainant as the complainant had voluntarily left opposite party No.1 hospital on 8.8.2012. So there is no deficiency of service or medical negligence on the part of opposite party No.3. He gave the treatment to the patient with proper care, due diligence and as per the set medical standards. The complainant has not produced on record any expert findings that there was any lapse on the part of opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 further denied that the family members of the complainant ever complained about un-hygienic condition at opposite party No.1 hospital or regarding any lapse on the part of the doctors/staff of opposite party No.1 hospital. He denied the allegations of the complainant that the condition of the complainant deteriorated day by day rather the condition of the complainant has improved and the attendants of the complainant were informed that the patient/complainant will need repeated debridement and daily dressing and that when the wounds are healthy, the patient will need skin grafting and it may take 3-4 weeks to become the wounds worth skin grafting. He performed the surgery on the complainant as per set medical standard and no injury was caused due to the surgery performed by opposite party No.3. As such no negligence can be attributed to opposite party No.3. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service or medical negligence on the part of opposite party No.3 qua the complainant.
11. Whereas the case of opposite party No.4 is that they had issued professional Indemnity Policy effective from 17.6.2012 to 16.6.2013 of opposite party No.3 on standard terms and conditions. They have no privity of contract with the complainant. They would settle the claim of opposite party No.3, if need arises as per terms and conditions of the policy. Before that opposite party No.4 has no role to play in this case.
12. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant Inderjit Singh met with road side accident on 28.7.2012 and suffered injuries at abdomen , right hip, right thigh, etc. The complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital where he was medically treated by Opposite Party No.2-Dr.Manpreet Singh with the consultation of Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal. Some tests/ scans on the complainant for proper treatment were recommended by Opposite Party No.2-Dr.Manpreet Singh. Accordingly, the complainant got his tests/ scans conducted at Advanced Diagnostics, Kennedy Avenue, Mall Road, Amritsar. After considering the report of tests/ scan dated 28.7.2012 Ex.C-191, Opposite Party No.2-Dr.Manpreet Singh opined that the complainant was badly crushed in an accident with heavy vehicle (truck), his abdomen, right thigh, etc., have been badly damaged and the complainant had suffered fractures. At the time of admission of the complainant, the condition of the complainant was very critical. The blood was oozing from his body in large scale, his heart beating was 126. The complainant/ patient was given intensive treatment at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and he was kept in ICU for a sufficiently long time. The patient became stable after 2 hours as is evident from the record of Opposite Party No.1-Hospital Ex.OP1/9 from page 1 to 100. The nature of the injuries was such that it could take two months to heal the same. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that in case the complainant was not given treatment within 15 minutes, he would have expired. Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal through his affidavit Ex.OP1/1 has deposed that treatment given to the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital was of standard line and the life of the complainant had been saved. There was possibility of infection in his body after short gap of time. The complainant and his family had been informed about the serious condition of the complainant as is evident from consent letter dated 28.7.2012 Ex.OP1/11 duly signed by the brother of the complainant.
13. The allegation of the complainant is that the Opposite Parties compelled the complainant and his family members to spend huge amount on lab tests/ scans from the centre of choice of Opposite Party No.2-Dr.Manpreet Singh, but the complainant could not produce any evidence that such tests were not required and the Opposite Party No.2-Dr.Manpreet Singh or Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal have recommended the tests which were not necessary for the treatment of the complainant. The condition of the complainant was very serious. He was crushed in accident, met with a heavy vehicle i.e. truck. He had suffered major/ serious injuries. He had suffered fractures. Moreover, no evidence has been produced by the complainant that Opposite Parties got the tests of the complainant conducted from the centre of choice of Opposite Party No.2-Dr.Manpreet Singh or that the said centre was not competent to conduct those tests. Consequently, we hold that there is no merit in this allegation levelled by the complainant that the Opposite Parties compelled the complainant to get the lab tests/ scan of the complainant conducted from the centre of choice of Opposite Party No.2-Dr.Manpreet Singh.
14. Other point raised by the complainant is that surgery of the complainant was conducted and after surgery, the condition of the complainant deteriorated. Proper post operative care was not taken and the complainant was treated in un hygienic condition as a result of which infection/ septicaemia in the body of the complainant had developed. We have gone through the entire record of treatment of the complainant produced by Opposite Party No.1-Hospital i.e. Ex.OP1/9 running into 100 pages which fully proves that the complainant was medically treated properly as per set medical standard. The complainant could not point out any defect in the medical treatment of the complainant in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. The condition of the complainant as stated above was very serious. There were multiple injuries/ fractures on the body of the complainant. Seriousness condition of the complainant was reported to the brother of the complainant. Vide “Consent for service” letter dated 28.2.2012 Ex.OP1/11, brother of the complainant has categorically admitted that he was informed that the condition of the complainant/ patient is very serious and he consented for the treatment of the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Surgery of the complainant was conducted by Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal, MS.Surgery, retired from Govt. Medical College , Amritsar as Professor of Surgery having experience as surgeon for more than 32 years. Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal has categorically stated that nature of the injuries on the complainant was such that it could take atleast 2 months to heal the same. He has further submitted that there was possibility of infection in his body after short gap of time. After surgery, condition of the complainant became stable. Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal was again called on 3.8.2012 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital to see the patient and after proper examination, Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal found that the patient had developed gangrene of skin over flanks, perineum and thighs with collection of blood underneath. Therefore, he advised the removal of dead skin i.e. debridement and drainage of blood. The skin changes and collection of blood was delayed as an effect of crush injury and contamination of wound at the site of accident. On the same day i.e. on 3.8.2012, debridement of wounds and drainage of blood was done under general anaesthesia after taking all necessary precautions. The treatment was complete without any problem. The attendants of the patient were informed that the patient will need repeated debridement and daily dressing. They were also informed that when the wounds are healthy the patient will need skin grafting which will be done by plastic surgeon and it will take 3-4 weeks to become the wounds worth skin grafting. Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal was further called to examine the patient at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 5.8.2012, 6.8.2012 and 8.8.2012 and at that time after proper examination of the complainant , Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal found that healing of wound was satisfactory as deposed by this witness through his affidavit Ex.OP1/1. Thereafter, the complainant had voluntarily left Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 8.8.2012 without the consent of Opposite Party No.1-Hospital authorities. Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal in his affidavit OP1/1 has categorically deposed that surgery on the complainant was performed by him as per set medical standard. Even the Doctor examined by the complainant i.e. Dr.Ravi Kumar Mahajan, Plastic Surgeon, Amandeep Hospital, G.T.Road, Amristar has nowhere stated that there was any medical negligence/ deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2-Dr.Manpreet Singh and Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal in the medical treatment of the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Complainant left Opposite Party No.1-Hospital without taking the consent of Opposite Party No.1-Hospital authorities and without getting discharge slip. The complainant was then taken to Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar where plastic surgery on the complainant was conducted and this fact has been mentioned by Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal in his affidavit Ex.OP1/1 that the attendants of the patient were informed that the patient will need repeated debridement and daily dressing and they were also informed that when the wounds are healthy the patient will need skin grafting which will be done by plastic surgeon and it will take 3-4 weeks to become the wounds worth skin grafting. The complainant could not point out any defect or deficiency in medical treatment of the complainant at the time of performance of surgery by Opposite Party No.3-Dr.B.B.Goyal at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and post operative treatment which was done as per medical standard. The complainant left Opposite Party No.1-Hospital without the consent of Opposite Party No.1-Hospital authorities and there is also allegation by Opposite Party No.1-Hospital authority that the complainant left Opposite Party No.1-Hospital without payment of bills of Opposite Party No.1-Hospital.
15. Apart from this, the complainant filed so many complaints to Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar and Commissioner of Police, Amritsar regarding the treatment of the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Resultantly, Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar and Commissioner of Police, Amritsar sent the matter to Civil Surgeon, Amritsar for enquiry and report and the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar constituted a board of (i) Dr.D.P.Singh, Artho, Specialist, (ii) Dr.Mandeep Singh, Surgeon and (iii) Dr.Amandeep Singh of Medicine, the said board gone through the treatment record of the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and have come to the conclusion that the treatment of the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital was as per standard line/ course. There was no negligence of any sort on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and the treatment is quite OK. Said report of dated 27.4.2012 is Ex.OP1/10.
16. Consequently, we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service or medical negligence in the performance of surgery/ medical treatment of the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital.
17. Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 13-05-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President
hrg (Anoop Sharma)
Member
