BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No.239 of 2014 Date of Institution: 17.6.2014
Date of Decision: 16.2.2015
Harjinder Kaur wife of Iqbal Singh, resident of Village Kattian Wali, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Sai Hospital and Laparoscopy Surgery Center, College Road, Abohar, District Fazilka, through Dr. Vinod Pal Sethi.
2. Siddharth Ultrasound and Colour Doppler Scan Center, Near Civil Hospital, Opposite Government Girls Secondary School, Abohar, District Fazilka, through Dr. C.L. Bhargawa.
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Opposite Raja Cinema, Fazilka, through its Authorized Signatory.
4. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Thana Road, Near Sandeep Cinema, Abohar, District Fazilka, through its Authorized Signatory.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Ms. Lalita Advocate, Advocate
For opposite party No.1 : Sh. Anand Gupta, Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Sushil Arora, Advocate
For opposite party No.3 : Sh. Ashwani Dhingra, Advocate
For opposite party No.4 : Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\2//
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant suffered from abdominal problem and she got admit at the hospital of opposite party No.1 on 14.10.2013. Opposite party No.1 gave guarantee to the complainant to provide best treatment. Opposite party No.1 referred the complainant to get Ultrasound Scan from the scan center of opposite party No.2 with guarantee that he is specialist and skilled doctor and his report is always correct. Opposite party No.2 also gave guarantee for giving correct report of scan to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 performed scan on 14.10.2013 and due to negligence prepared a false report that all is well and charged Rs.500/- from the complainant. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant got treatment from opposite party No.1 for a week and paid approximately Rs.10,000/- to opposite party No.1. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 declared the complainant as healthy and sound and discharged from the hospital. On 23.10.2013 at midnight the complainant suffered severe pain and she visited at the hospital of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 gave injection etc. and declared the complainant as
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\3//
cured and asked the complainant to return home, but she got no relief and got admitted at Dr. Sukhwinder Singh’s Hospital at Muktsar, where Dr. Sukhwinder Singh re-performed the Ultrasound Scan of the complainant and after considering the report, he declared that something was wrong with the complainant and referred to get CT Scan from Adesh Spiral CT Scan Center, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar. The doctor opined that the complainant suffers from “Heterogeneously Enhancing SOL in Upper Pole of Right Kidney with Exopytic component as described above; likely Neoplastic Etiology and Milled Hepatomegaly”. This CT Scan report declared that the complainant was in serious condition and requires urgent operation and the doctor advised to get treatment from Sri Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The complainant got admitted in the said hospital at New Delhi and got her treatment, where she was operated for Cancer tumor near right kidney and paid Rs.30,000/- in advance to the said hospital and later on Rs.1,00,000/- to the said hospital. Further it has been pleaded that opposite party No.2 had not declared in its report that the complainant was having tumor near right kidney and due to negligent and wrongful treatment of opposite party No.1, the Tumor of the complainant became cancer Tumor, which is endanger to her life. Due to delay and wrong diagnose and wrong treatment given by the opposite parties, the right kidney of the complainant has been removed. The complainant is still
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\4//
under treatment, she got bi-monthly treatment from the said hospital at New Delhi. The complainant sent legal notice to opposite parties on 27.1.2014 through her counsel. The opposite parties gave wrong and vague reply to the said legal notice. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant, which was spent by the complainant on her treatment, operation, Medicines and hospitalization expenses at Sri Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. Further a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their respective written replies to the complaint. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the complainant visited opposite party No.1 on 14.10.2013 as Out-Door Patient (OPD) case. After checking by Dr. V.P. Sethi, the complainant was advised for complete ultrasound test. The complainant got conducted ultrasound test from opposite party No.2. On the basis of the ultrasound test, opposite party No.1 Dr. V.P. Sethi provided the best treatment to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 charged fee of Rs.100/- only from the complainant and gave the treatment on then prevailing position and condition. Thereafter, the complainant never turned
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\5//
up for rechecking. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. In its written reply, opposite party No.2 has pleaded that lady with the name Harjinder Kaur of approximate age of 42 years came to opposite party No.2 with the slip of prescription of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 never gave guarantee to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 charged the complainant for a sum of Rs.500/-. Further it has been pleaded that the upper poles of both right and left kidneys are difficult to comment for Radiologists due to technical deficiency of ultrasound scanning. As the rays bend due to refraction at the lower surface of liver and spleen where these kidneys lies, and there seems a mass though if it is not there so of the pain persist then they refer these patients for C.T. Scanning, which is superior technically. In this case, if the patient would have come to opposite party No.2 again, then opposite party No.2 would have recommended her for CT scanning as the colleague of opposite party No.2 at Muktsar has recommended. Opposite party No.2 is a qualified Radiologist, who can only suggest and he does not diagnose any disease and moreover the reports are always 90% accurate due to technical limits of Machines. As per Diagnostic Radiology, which is an Anglo-American Text Book of Imaging, which is edited by R.G. Grainger and D.J. Allison at Relevant Page of tumour in kidney, it is clearly mentioned that although
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\6//
CT is more expensive and time-consuming, and imploys lionizing radiation and iodinated contrast media, it enjoys some advantages over ultrasonography. It is more accurate in delineating a renal mass and diferenticting Pseudomasses and anatomical varients. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. In its written reply, opposite party No.3 has pleaded that no original insurance policy and other relevant documents have been supplied by the complainant or the opposite party and without production and supply of original insurance policy in question, there is no privity of contract between opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.1. As per the policy terms pertaining to the doctors indemnity insurance, it is mandatory to immediately inform the insurance company regarding any claim, but in the present case, neither the complainant nor opposite party No.1 has ever informed opposite party No.3 regarding any negligence in the treatment allegedly taken by the complainant. The name of opposite party No.3 is liable to be deleted from the array of opposite parties, as there was no allegation against him. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
5. In its written reply, the opposite party No.4 has pleaded that the alleged grievance of complainant only lies in between the complainant
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\7//
on one hand and opposite party No.1 and 3 on the other hand and opposite party No.4 has got no concern with the same. Neither any claim has been lodged with opposite party No.4, nor the same has been processed. Opposite party No.4 has not issued a Professional Indemnity Dr. (Other) Policy No.041200/46/12/35/00000630 to Dr. Chhagan Lal Bhargav for the period from 8.1.2013 to 7.1.2014 and the same is subject to strict compliance under Section 64 VB of Insurance Act. Dr. Bhargav is a Radiologist and running an Ultrasound Centre under the name & style of Sidharth Ultrasound Scan Centre, having no concern with Dr. Vinod Pal Sethi of Sai Hospital & Laparoscopic Surgery Centre, Abohar, opposite party No.1. Neither opposite party No.4 has ever received any claim or notice either from the complainant or the insured Dr. Bhargav, nor even the copy of alleged report dated 14.10.2013, any document of the alleged treatment allegedly given and recommended by Dr. Vinod Pal Sethi. The said CT Scan is always correct and report of complainant has not been indicted by any expert doctor or Lab or Centre. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
6. Learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\8//
Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/6 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1. Similarly, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-2/1 to Ex. OP-2/3 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2. Learned counsel for opposite partyNo.3 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3. Learned counsel for opposite partyNo.4 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-4/1 and Ex.OP-4/2 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.4.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
8. The case of the complainant is that due to gross medical negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 through its Dr. Vinod Pal Sethi in conducting the medical treatment of the complainant as well as due to gross negligence on the part of opposite party No.2 in conducting ultrasound scan tests/reports of the complainant, the tumor of the complainant became cancer tumor, as a result of which her right kidney has been removed and she has to spend a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- on her treatment, operation, medicines and hospitalization expenses at Sri Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. Admittedly, the complainant was under the treatment of opposite party No.1 for pain in her abdomen and her ultrasound test/scan was conducted on 14.10.2013 by opposite party No.2 on the prescription of opposite party No.1. To prove her case, the
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\9//
complainant has placed on the file copy of Ultrasound Scan report dated 24.10.2013 conducted by Dr. Sukhwinder Singh Hospital, Muktsar as Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, copy of Ultrasound Scan report dated 14.10.2013 conducted by opposite party No.2 as Ex.C-14 and copy of CT Scan report dated 24.10.2013 conducted by Adesh Spiral CT Scan Centre as Ex.C-19. A perusal of ultrasound scan report dated 24.10.2013 Ex.C-2 conducted by Dr. Sukhwinder Singh Hospital, Muktsar reveals as under :-
“WELL DEFINED MASS OF 57 MM x 60 MM SIZE AT UPPER POLE OF RK”
Impression : RK MASS ADV CT ABD
A perusal of CT Scan report dated 24.10.2013 Ex.C-19 conducted by Adesh Spiral CT Scan Centre, Muktsar reveals as under :-
“Heterogeneously enhancing SOL in upper pole of right kidney with exophytic component as described above : likely neoplastic etiology Mild hepatomegaly.”
A perusal of ultrasound scan report 14.10.2013 Ex.C-14 conducted by opposite party No.2 reveals as under :-
“Gall B. Normal in distension. No intraluminal echogenic mass seen. Gall bladder wall is thickened.”
Impression : CH. CHOLECYSTITIS
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\10//
A perusal of copy of Discharge Summary Ex.C-30 issued by Department of Urology Unit 1A, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi reveals that the complainant was admitted in the said hospital on 28.10.2013 and was diagnosed as a case of Right Renal Tumor and her Laparoscopic right radical nephrectomy was done under G.A. on 28.10.2013 and thereafter she was discharged on 1.11.2013 from the said hospital, whereas, the Ultrasound Scan report dated 14.10.2013 Ex.C-14 conducted by opposite party No.2 i.e. only a few days before the operation of the complainant, does not disclose the problem/disease for which the complainant was operated in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi on 28.10.2013. Opposite party No.2 has pleaded in para No.3 of its written reply on merits that the upper poles of both right and left kidneys are difficult to comment for radiologists due to technical deficiency of ultrasound scanning, whereas, in the copy of literature placed on the file by opposite party No.2 as Ex.OP-2/2, it has been clearly mentioned that when an excretory urogram suggests a mass, computed tomography (CT) may be employed as the next diagnostic study, though many radiologists will utilize ultrasonography. Simple renal cysts, solid tumours and hydronephrosis are easily and accurately demonstrated with ultrasonography, though this modality is more dependent on technique than CT. Therefore, copy of literature produced by opposite party No.2 as Ex.OP-2/2 does not support the plea of
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\11//
opposite party No.2. Moreover, opposite party No.2 also has not challenged the genuineness of reports Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-19. In these circumstances, it reveals that opposite party No.2 committed negligence in conduting the ultrasound scan/report of the complainant and has given a wrong ultrasound report without due diligence and care. Had opposite party No.2 conducted the ultrasound scan/report of the complainant with due diligence and care and given the correct report, required treatment could have been given by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. Had the complainant not vigilant and would not have got conducted her ultrasound scan and CT Scan from the other Ultrasound/CT scan centre, the doctor concerned could not have been able to give proper treatment to the complainant, which could have proved to be dangerous to the health/life of the complainant. The act and conduct of opposite party No.2 amounts to deficiency in service. Opposite party No.2 is liable to compensate the complainant for giving her wrong diagnose/ultrasound report, which caused physical pain, mental harassment as well as financial loss to the complainant. The profession of opposite party No.2 is insured with opposite party No.4. Therefore, opposite party No.4 is liable to reimburse the amount of compensation to opposite party No.2 subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Opposite party No.1 has given treatment to the complainant on the basis of report given by opposite party No.2. It is also
C.C. No.239 of 2014 \\12//
not the case of the complainant the medicine prescribed by opposite party No.1 on the basis of report issued by opposite party No.2 was not the recommended medicine as per the established medical practice. Therefore, no case of any deficiency in service or medical negligence is made out against opposite party No.1.
9. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as consolidated compensation for physical pain, mental harassment and financial loss as well as litigation expenses to the complainant, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, opposite party No.2 shall be at liberty to claim the above awarded amount of compensation from opposite party No.4 subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy, after compliance of the order. However, complaint against opposite party Nos.1 and 3 stands dismissed. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced 16.2.2015
(Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh )
Member
