Haryana

StateCommission

A/884/2015

BANARSI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMVEDNA HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN GUPTA

01 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     884 of 2015

Date of Institution:     14.10.2015

Date of Decision :      01.03.2016

 

Smt. Banarsi Devi wife of Balbir Singh, Resident of Village Tajpur, Police Station Ateli, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

 

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Samvedna Hospital through Manager Samvedna Hospital, Narnaul, Sector-1, behind D.C. Residence Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul.

2.      Dr. Manoj Yadav, Medical Officer, Samvedna Hospital, Narnaul, Sector-1, behind D.C. Residence, Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul.

3.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited., Branch Office 134/135, Sahu Plaza Building 3^rd Floor, Saneh Nagar, Aalambag, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. 

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Varun Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent No.1.

                             Shri Anirudh Kush, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Shri Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated September 14^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.122 of 2013.

2.      Banarsi Devi-complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the patient’), filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the allegations that she suffered pain in her stomach and back on March 13^th, 2013. She visited Krishna Diagnostic Centre, Narnaul where ultrasound was conducted. After examining the report of ultrasound, Dr. S.S. Sharma, observed that the complainant was having 21.0 mm stone in her right middle calyx and advised for operation. The patient was admitted in Samvedna Hospital-Opposite Party No.1 on May 7^th, 2013 and laparoscopic surgery was conducted.  She was discharged on May 11^th, 2013. The patient again feeling pain on May 18^th, 2013, approached Dr. Manoj Yadav-Opposite Party No.2 and was admitted in the hospital on the same day, that is, May 18^th, 2013. X-ray was conducted and after prescribing medicines, the patient was discharged on May 21^st, 2013.

3.      On June 4^th, 2013, the patient again felt pain, ultrasound was conducted; she was found having stone of 7.0 mm in right lower calyx and 6.0 mm in right uretero pelvic junction. Alleging that the doctor/opposite parties, did not conduct operation properly, the complainant sought compensation by filing the instant complaint.

4.      Opposite Party No.1, in its reply stated that operation was conducted through laparoscopy by Dr. Sanjeev Narang, Surgeon, as per the medical protocol and the patient was discharged from the hospital after her full recovery.

5.      Opposite Party No.2 in his separate reply pleaded that operation of the complainant was conducted by Dr.Sanjeev Narang of Jaipur and the opposite party No.2 had only examined the patient in Out Patient Department (OPD). Dr. Sanjeev Narang, is a qualified surgeon and the operation was conducted as per medical norms.

6.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.3 did not contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte.

7.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

8.      The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, is that vide ultrasound report dated 13^th March, 2013 (Exhibit C-2), 21.0 mm long stone was seen in right middle calyx.  Dr. S.S. Sharma, had given opinion that “Post cholecystectomy with Dilated CBD with Right renal stone with Right pelvicaliectasis (?ureteric stone)”.  Operation was conducted on 7^th May, 2013. Vide ultrasound report dated 4^th June, 2013 (Exhibit C-10), again the complainant was found having stone  of 7.0 mm in her right lower calyx, 6.0 mm in right uretero pelvic junction.

9.      We have perused the reports. For ready reference, the relevant parts of the reports are as under:-

Report dated 13.03.2013 (Exhibit C-2)

                   “Right Kidney:     Right kidney is normal in size shape echotexture and shows pelvicaliectasis. 21.0 mm long stone is seen in right middle calyx.”

Report dated 04.06.2013 (Exhibit C-10)

                   “Right Kidney:     Right kidney is normal in size shape echotexture and shows grade I hydroncphrosis. 7.0 mm long stone is seen in right lower calyx. 6.0 mm long stone is seen in right uretero pelvic junction.”

10.    In both the reports, the stone was seen at different places and different sizes.          Even if presuming that a part of the stone travelled into uretero, it cannot be termed as deficiency in service. No expert opinion has been produced by the complainant to prove the allegations of negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

11.    In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 01.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL