ORDER

04.06.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. Brief facts of the present case are that OP1 is a hospital/clinic, being run as a business concern, having its unit at above stated place and engaged in providing medical services to the patients. It is stated that the OP2 is a doctor ( a chest specialist), having specialization for disease of Tuberculosis working with the OP1 and according to OP1, the OP2 provide his services to it on demand as the OPs have, according to the OP2, is a govt. employee and working with a Govt. Hospital, Rohini, Delhi.
2. It is stated that the complainant in the month of September 2011 visited the OP1 and thereafter the OP2 started treatment of the complainant for TB. It is further stated that OP1 charged fees from the complainant. It is stated that OP2 after investigations being conducted upon the complainant on his advise, the OPs were of the view that within a period of six months, the complainant will be treated fully. It is stated that the treatment of the complainant remained continue  for about a period of six months. Each and every time, the complainant was made to pay fees to the OPs. It is further stated that the treatment of the complainant was fully paid on one and the complainant had to buy costly medicines on her  own, the OP2 on each and every visit during treatment of the complainant told that complainant was perfectly fit as her treatment is going on a positive direction and very soon complainant will be ok.
3. It is stated that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the OP1 towards treatment and other services provided to complainant by the OP1 and there is no outstanding against complainant qua treatment in question. It is further stated that complainant during her treatment being undertaken by OP2 and under supervision of the OP1 developed problem in eyes and when the complainant narrated this fact to OP2, he replied back that it is quite normal and happens to almost all the patients. It is stated that when things started going out of control, the complainant had to consult to eye specialist who informed the complainant that due to heavy dose of some medicines, the eyes  of complainant were deteriorating. It is stated that when complainant contacted the OP2 regarding the information received from eye specialist, the OP2 did not give any satisfactory answer and eventually stopped talking to the complainant even telephonically. It is stated that as per the doctors/specialists engaged in the field of eye treatment that the complainant lost about 50% vision of her eyes due to wrong treatment being given to complainant by OP2.
4. It is stated that as per doctors and medical advise received by complainant, the treatment given by OP2  in OP1 hospital was given negligently and without care and caution and contrary to the medical requirements. It is stated that the treatment given in the OP1 hospital by the OP2, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be successful. It is stated that the doctors have opined it a bad treatment and given negligently. It is stated that the present case is a clear cut case of medical negligence by service provider for which the OPs are responsible solely and entirely for everything, moreover, the OP1 has engaged the OP2 is a government employee which is not permissible and this is why the complainant is contemplating to approach MCI against the OP2 and also to approach the hospital where he is employed.
5. It is stated that complainant has spent about Rs.1,00,000/- on treatment due to medical negligence of OPs, careless handling of treatment in as much as the complainant has suffered mental and physical agony without any fault and due to the sole medical negligence in treatments of both the OPs.  It is stated that both OPs are under an obligation to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to complainant in view of abovesaid medical negligence. It is further stated that complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.07.2013 to OPs through regd. A.D and speed post and the same was duly served to OP1 but the OP2 intentionally refused to accept the same. It is stated that OP1 sent a letter after receiving the notice sent by the complainant. Inspite of the service of the legal notice, the OPs did neither comply the contents of the said notice nor replied the same.
6. The complainant is seeking direction to  OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as a compensation amount against the harassment and agony suffered by complainant, to pay Rs.55,000/- at litigation expenses and fees  paid to counsel and any other order which deems fit and proper.
7. OP1 and 2 filed WS and taken preliminary objections that the present complaint has been filed by complainant with the sole motive to extort money by abusing and misusing the process of law as well as, it is an instrument to malign the reputation of the OP1. As a matter of fact the complainant visited OP1 on 17.09.2011 with the complaint of Tuberculosis with the reference of one  family friend namely Mukul Sharma of OP1. Complainant was prescribed well tested drugs/medicines approved by the World Health Organization and Government of India for the alleged disease. It is stated that the complainant also advised to take treatment from a DOTS Centre Near complainant residence, which  have been opened by the Govt. in all localities of Delhi, but complainant  refused to take treatment from the said Govt. Institutions which are established for the treatment of Tuberculosis due to loss of wages for visiting these center on thrice in week. However, the OP1 has not charged any  single penny from the complainant for suggesting some medical investigation since she came with the reference of Mr. Mukul Sharma the friend of OP1 and also advised to come after getting the investigations. However complainant again visited on 24.09.2011 and was advised medical treatments for tuberculosis and asked to come after two weeks to check for any adverse events due to prescribed medicines and complainant was asked to report after one month but the complainant  has not visited as advised and complainant only visited on 26.03.2013 after five month of the last visit i.e 11.10.2011. Hence, the present complaint being vague, mischievous, false is liable to be dismissed with an exemplary cost against the complaint.
8. It is stated that the present complaint is not maintainable against the OP1 since the services provided by OP1 to the complainant were neither sub-standard nor negligent in any manner whatsoever, thus the complaint being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the allegations in respect of alleged deficiency in services are vague and baseless. In fact the complainant has been concealing the material and true facts from the Hon’ble Forum  in respect of that she is in habit of taking simultaneous treatment from many doctors as reflected from the documents filed by complainant with the complaint and also complainant never complained that complainant was suffering from hypothyroidism or any eye’s disease at the time of first visit. Thus, the complaint of complainant has no merit and is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
9. It is stated that the present complaint filed by complainant is time barred since the complainant visited lastly on 26.03.2012 and the present complaint has been filed on 04^th July 2014 after the lapse of two years, as prescribed period Consumer Protection Act. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. It is further stated that the complainant is liable to be prosecuted under section 340 of Cr.P.C for manufacturing the forged and fabricated documents purported the OPD treatments papers of Guru Nanak Eye Center with registration no.32980 which do not appear the complainants name on the OPD register. It is stated that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act since, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
10. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP1 and 2 and reiterated the contents of preliminary objections. It is stated that during every visit the complainant never complaint of any eyes problem, however, it was brought to the notice of OP2 on 26.03.2012 than she was advised to stop all treatment and undergo a fresh investigation and consult the eye specialist. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. Rejoinder filed by complainant to the  WS of OP1 and 2 and denied all the allegations made in the WS and reiterated contents of complaint.

12. Complainant filed evidence by way of her affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint. Complainant relied  on copy of Voter Card Annexure A, copy of letter head of OP2 dated 17.09.2011 Annexure B, copy of treatment documents dated 24.03.2012, 14.04.2012 and 15.05.2012 exhibit as Annexure C, D and E, copy of treatment no.032980 Annexure F, test of eyes Annexure G, copy of treatment dated 28.05.2012 Annexure H (colly.), copy of legal notice and postal receipt Annexure I and J, copy of reply of OP1 and refusal by OP2 Annexure K, L and M and copy of reply dated 25.11.2014 through the RTI application dated 30.10.2014 Annexure N and O.

13. OP1 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Dr. Ruchi Singhal. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP1 relied on cop of guidelines approved by World Health Organization Ex.RW1/1 and copy of registration no.32980 OPD treatment at Guru Nanak Eye Center Ex.RW1/2.
14. OP2 filed evidence by way of his affidavit. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated.
15. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP1 and 2.
16. We have heard Sh. Deepak Sharma counsel for complainant and Sh. Anil proxy for  Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal counsel for  OP and perused the record.
17. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant visited OP1 policlinic on 17.09.2011 for treatment of tuberculosis. OP2 as per prescription filed on record examined her and recommended certain tests and medicines. Thereafter, complainant visited on 11.10.2011 and advised for further treatment for one month. On 26.03.2012 complainant again visited and advised “stop Ethanmsntol/ATT and referred eye specialist for opinion. As per prescription filed by complainant dated 24.03.2012 of Eye 7, Seven eye Super Speciality, unit of Choudhary eye center for treatment of eyes. She remained under treatment till 12.05.2012. Thereafter, complainant visited Dr. Rajinder Prasad eye hospital for eye treatment and she filed the documents for treatment upto 02.07.2012. The complainant alleged that the treatment given by OP1 and 2 developed problem in her eyes and the eye specialist informed the complainant that due to heavy doses of some medicines she had developed eye problem. According to the OP1 and 2 the complainant was given the medicines for treatment of tuberculosis as prescribed world wide and she did not report any adverse event till 11.10.2011. However, she visited after about five months on 26.03.2012 than she was advised as per documents to get checked her eyes with eye specialist. The complainant has not filed the report  of the eye specialist of Eye 7 Clinic as well as of the treating doctor at Gurunanak Eye Center or Dr. Rajinder Prasad Eye Hospital which established that the eye problem as mentioned in the documents of  Guru Nanak Eye Center “Ethemstol Toxic Nemopephy” has been caused in the eyes of complainant due to the medicine overdose of tuberculosis prescribed by OP1 and 2. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has not taken any steps to seek the opinion of eye specialist during the entire  proceedings. In the absence of a detailed medical report of Eye specialist or evidence  of treating eye specialist the complainant failed to establish on record that she suffered  from high disease due to the overdose prescribed by OP1 and 2 for treatment of tuberculosis.
18. On the basis  of above observation and discussion complainant failed to establish deficiency of service  or negligence on the part of OP1 and 2. Hence, present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.

19. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  04.06.2024.

        SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER