DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR

Complaint No.137 of 2017 Date of Instt. 08.05.2017 Date of Decision: 09.03.2021

Jawant Singh aged about 63 years s/o S. Darshan Singh r/o VPO khothran Khurd, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Nagar (Nawanshahr)

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Sacred Heart Hospital, G.T Road, Maqsudan, District Jalandhar through its Director/Manager/Owner.

2. Dr. D.S Lal, Sacred Heart Hospital, G.T Road, Maqsudan, District Jalandhar.

…..Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

MRS. JYOTSNA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY :

For Complainant : Sh. Vivek Handa, Advocate

For OP No.1 : Sh. Y.V Rishi, Advocate

For OP No.2 : Given up

ORDER:-

KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that in the year 2007, he fell down due to which he had received injuries on his right leg. After that, his family members took him to OP no.1 Hospital and OP no.2 medically examined him. OP no.2 declared that bone of his right leg below the knee had broken, for which he needs a surgery. OP no.2 advised his rod was required to be placed in the right leg. When, he and his family members inquired about the total charges of surgery and insertion of the rod in his right leg, the OP no.2 told him that estimate cost of the above said purpose is about Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/- and further assured him and his family members that rod is of very fine quality and having lifetime validity and further assured that this rod will never break down, after its replacement in the right leg. On the assured given by OPs, he and his family members gave their consent for placement of the surgery. The complainant was operated by OP no.2 at the hospital of OP no.1. OP no.1 charged Rs.80,000/- from him He remained admitted in the hospital for a week. After discharge, he visited the OPs for 6-7 month for follow up treatment and for the said purpose, he had spent Rs.20,000/- . Thereafter to utter shock when he noticed that his right leg, which was operated for, was short in length as compared to other leg. He was consulted with OPs and visited the OPs and asked bout different in length of the legs and OPs told him that it was just the misconception in his mind, there is no difference in the length of his legs. Six seven months before, he felt severe pain on his operated right leg, then he again visited OP no.1 where he consulted another doctor namely Rajan Dushyant Vij, who medically examined him and advised him x-ray of his right leg. After watching the x-ray film, Dr. Rajan Dushyant Vij told him that the rod which was placed, is broken now and due to that infection is spreading in his right leg and for that reason, he was suffering from severe pain. OPs were grossly negligent in conducting surgery for placing the rod as well as they have cheated him by placing poor quality of the rod. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, he has filed the present complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to refund medical treatment expenses of Rs.80,000/-, besides Rs.50,000/- as damages for negligence and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was averred that complainant fell down due to which he received injuries on his right leg rather as per the record, he suffered injury due to assault by his brother on 29.05.2007. On his request, he was treated by OPs for fracture in his right leg through surgery with interlock nailing. It was denied that nailing rod is very fine quality and is having life time validity. The complainant was operated by OP no.2 at the Hospital of OP no.1. It was admitted that complainant was admitted in the Hospital from 30.05.2007. He was operated on 02.06.2007 and was discharged from the Hospital of OP no.1 on 06.06.2007 post operatively, he remained well and found to be medically fit. He came for follow up on 13.08.2007, 09.09.2007, 03.10.2007 and on 27.10.2008. Thereafter, being satisfied with the treatment given by OPs, he never reported about any discontentment or dissatisfaction for his treatment by OPs for the last more than 9 years after treatment. It was wrong that the complainant spent Rs.20,000/- for the said follow up treatment. Rest of the averment made by the complainant was denied and OP no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The complainant has made a statement on 27.10.2017 that he does not want to proceed present complaint against OP no.2. As such, name of OP no.2 is given up on 27.10.2017.

4. The complainant has not produced any document in support of his case. On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of George Authorized Representative as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1-15 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard learned counsel for OP No.1 but none has appeared on behalf of the complainant during the time of arguments and have also gone through the record of the case.

6. It is an established fact that due to fell down the complainant received injuries on his right leg in the year 2007, this fact was also admitted by OP no.1. From perusal of complaint, it has transpired that OP no.2 declared that bone of right leg below of the complainant had broken for which he needs surgery. OP no.2 also advised a rod is required to be placed in the right leg. He alleged that OPs told him the estimate cost of the above said purpose is about Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/- and further assured him that rod is of very fine quality ad is having lifetime validity. OP no.2 also assured him that this rod will never break down. On the assurance of OP no.2, he and his family members gave their consent for placement of the above said rod by way of surgery. He was operated by OP no.2 at the hospital of OP no.1 and charged Rs.80,000/- for the said operation from the complainant. After discharges, he visited the OPs for his follow up treatment and for the said purpose, he had spent Rs.20,000/-. Thereafter, he noticed that right which was operated was short in length as compared to other leg. When he was consulted OP no.2 and asked about above difference, he told him that there was no difference in the length of his legs. He alleged that he felt severe pain in his operated right leg. He consulted another doctor namely Rajan Dushyant Vij, who medically examined him and advised him for x-ray. After watching, he told him that rod which was placed is broken now and due to infection, he was suffering from severe pain. He alleged due to this act OPs deficient and negligent in provided services to complainant.

7. The complainant has not produced any document on the record to prove his case. The alleged he spent Rs.80,000/- on his treatment and further Rs.20,000/- for follow up for his operated right leg. But he has not produced any bill regarding payment or medical history on the record to prove any negligence on the part of OPs. The complainant only produced complaint without any document. In the absence of any material evidence or document, we cannot attributed any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

8. OP no.1 relied upon affidavit of Grace Poomkudy Authorized Representative as Ex.OP-1/A on the record. This witness stated that surgery was conducted on 02.06.2007 for his fractured right leg due to assault alleged by complainant. The complainant was diagnosed as fracture of right tibia and fibula upper one third and was admitted in Hospital of OP no.1 on 30.05.2007. He was discharged on 06.06.2007. But to refute this, complainant has not produced any discharge summary to prove that when he was admitted in the hospital and when he was discharged from the hospital or what diagnosis was given to him at the time of operation. Ex.OP-1/1 is copy of case note. Ex.OP-1/2 is copy of inpatient order sheet. Ex.OP-1/3 is copy of inpatient order sheet. Ex.OP-1/4 is copy of vital chart. Ex.OP-1/5 and Ex.OP-1/8 are copies of nurse record. Ex.OP-1/10 is copy of consent form for operation, which was signed by complainant himself in English language. Ex.OP-1/11 to Ex.OP-1/12 are copies of receipts. Ex.OP-1/13 is copy of treatment record. From perusal of this document, it is clear that Interlock Nailing (Rt Leg) was performed in the right leg of the complainant.

9. The complainant has failed to prove any cogent evidence on the record. In the absence of any valid document, it is impossible to prove any deficiency or negligence on the part of OPs. For deciding the case, documentary evidence is necessary. We do not find any force in the submission of complainant and the present complaint is hereby dismissed.

10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

11. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

9^th of March 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)