Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/86

kamaljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sangha Hosapital & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S.Johal, Adv

24 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

Consumer Complaint No. :  86 of 04.09.2015

Date of decision                   : 24.05.2016

         

Kamaljeet Kaur, wife of Balwinder Singh, resident of Village Chak Dhera, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

 

                                                                                       .....Complainant

 

                                                Vs.

 

1. Sangha Hospital, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Rupnagar through Dr. J.P.S. Sangha.

2. Dr. J.P.S. Sangha Gen & Laproscopic Surgeon Sangha Hospital, Giani ZAil Singh Nagar, Near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Rupnagar.

3. Dr. Arun Sarohi C/o Sangha Hospital Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Rupnagar .

4. United India Insurance Co, 42-C, 3^rd Floor, Moolchand Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110024.

 

                                                                                       ….Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer

                                       Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                                       MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.S.S. Johal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant 

Sh. Suraj Pal, Advocate, counsel for O.Ps. No.1 to 3

Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for O.P. No.4

 

 

ORDER

          MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

          Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying therein that the O.Ps. be directed to:-

a)       To refund/return the expenses of treatment and test to the tune of Rs.25,000/-  spent in Sangha Hospital and Rs.1600/- spent in Max Hospital Mohali.

b)      Pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment along with interest.

c)       To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses

d)      Any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit, according to the facts & circumstances of the case.

 

2.                            In brief, the case of the complainant is that she was suffering from Stomach Pain and had visited Sangha Hospital for her treatment on 13.07.2015. O.P. No.3 examined her and advised to get her urine test done from the Laboratory of the Hospital. She got her urine test done from the said laboratory and pus cells to the extent of 25-30 were found in the urine test. After the test report, regularly for five days, two injections per day were given to her, three times in a day. On 17.7.2015, she got her urine examined from the said laboratory and pus-cells to the extent of 4-5 were found. After that the O.P. No.3 had given medicine for a week and advised her to get her urine test done again after one week. After taking medicine for one week, there was no improvement in her condition and she was feeling tired, complaint about gas problem and headache. On 24.7.2015, she again got her urine test done from the said laboratory and pus cells to the extent of 4-5 were found in the test. After the said test, injections were again given to her for three days. After completion of course of three days, she got her urine test done from the said laboratory and pus cells to the extent of 20-22 were found in the test. During this period, there was no improvement in her condition, rather she had suffered more pain. It is further stated that again from 27.7.2015 to 29.7.2015, she was given injections, on 29.7.2015, again the O.Ps. got her urine test done and told her that the pus-cells to the extent of 25-30 were found in her urine. When, she told the O.P. No.3 that there is no improvement, then the O.P. No.3 advised her to consult O.P. No.2. Accordingly, she consulted O.P. No.2, who also gave her injections twice a day for some days. On 31.07.2015, she was again asked to get her urine test done from the said laboratory. It was told to her that 4-5 pus cells were found. After that O.P. No.2 advised her to take medicine for seven days. But after seven days, there was no improvement in her health and she approached the O.P. No.2, who told her to get her urine test done from the hospital laboratory, again in the test report pus cells to the extent of 25-30 were found. After getting the report, when she tried to meet the O.P. No.2, it was told to her he had left the hospital. Thereafter, as there was no improvement in her condition, her husband took her to Max Hospital, Mohali, on 13.08.2015, there Doctor Seema Sharma, examined her, checked the old record and advised her to get her fresh urine and urine culture test done from the lab of Max Hospital.  In the report given by the Max Hospital, Pus cells were found Nil and even culture report was negative. Dr. Seema Sharma, told her that the deterioration in her condition of her health was due to strong injection and the antibiotics given by the O.Ps., inspite of the fact that there was no infection in her stomach. On 15.08.2015, she again approach the O.Ps. and told about the wrong report given by their lab and the wrong treatment given by them. At that time the O.P. No.2 again told her to get her urine test done from their laboratory. Accordingly, he got her urine test done from the said laboratory and in the test report there were pus cells to the extent of 22-24. The O.Ps told her that the reports of the Max Hospital were wrong and O.P. No.2 advised her to get her urine test done from some independent laboratory. It is further stated that on the advised of O.P. No.2 on 15.8.2015, she got her urine test done from Micro Lab, Rupnagar, and on 16.08.2015, from Khanna Clinic Laboratory, Rupnagar. In the reports given by both the laboratories, the pus cells were found nil. She told the O.P. No.2 about the reports given by the aforesaid laboratories and told him that the test reports given by their laboratory were incorrect and the treatment given by them was wrong, but the O.P. No.2 flatly refused to accept their negligence, whereas from the reports of the independent laboratories and lab of the Max Hospital, it is clear that the reports given by the laboratory of Sangha Hospital were wrong, on the basis of wrong test reports, the O.Ps. have given wrong treatment, as such, it is a case of medical negligence.

3.               On being put to notice, the O.Ps. No.1 to 3 have filed joint written version taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is misconceived,  groundless, frivolous, vexatious and scurrilous which is unsustainable in the eyes of law and has been filed without any justified reason/cause against the answering O.Ps.; that no specific, scientific  and justified allegations with regard to negligence or deficiency in providing services has been made by the complainant, the complainant has miserably failed to explain, how the O.Ps. were negligent in performing their duties; that this complaint has been filed just to waste the valuable time of Hon’ble Forum and to defame the O.Ps. No.1 to 3; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties because the complainant has no impleaded the United India Insurance Company Limited, with whom the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 are insured; that the patient came to O.Ps. hospital on 13.7.2015, with the complaint of fever and pain in abdomen. The patient had a history of LSCS one month earlier. Initial examination was done and the patient was advised for USG abdomen, MP, Urine Culture and hematology. Antibiotics were given by the O.P. No.3.  Patient came on 14.07.2015, 16.07.2015, 18.07.2015 and 24.07.2015 for the follows ups. On 26.07.2015, the patient complained of pain in umbilical region with 5-6 episodes of vomiting. The patient urine report showed numerous pus-cells, hence antibiotics were given to her. After through check up and on the basis of test reports, the patient was diagnosed of recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI).  It is further stated that the increase or decrease of pus-cells depends upon many factors. It may increase because of non taking of medicine as prescribed or due to less intake of water by the patient. The treatment was given by the O.Ps. No.1 to 3 diligently with utmost due care and caution in treating the complainant and as such there is no negligence on their part.  In Para wise reply, the facts stated in the preliminary objections were reiterated by the O.Ps. No. 1 to 3. It is, prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed against the O.Ps. No. 1 to 3. With costs. 

4.                 Vide order dated 14.12.2015, the Insurance Company were impleaded as Opposite Party No.4 in the arrays of opposite parties. On being   put  to  notice,  it  appeared  and filed written version taking

preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the said complaint, so many complicated facts are involved in the present case, which could not be decided by this Forum because the proceedings before it are summary in nature; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum; that the complainant had not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the answering O.P. is only to indemnify the doctor if doctor J.P.S. Sangha, is found to be negligent in performing his duties but in this case, there is no negligence on the part of the said doctor, because it had not receive any intimation from the said doctor. Moreover, complainant be put to strict proof that O.Ps. No.1 to 3 are insured with the answering O.P. The complainant ought to have produced original insurance policy for verification and confirmation.  In the absence of original insurance policy and its verification, it is denied that the doctor or hospital was insured with the answering O.P.  Even if the liability of the company arises as per professional indemnity policy issued to Doctors, Insurance Company is not liable as per (Exclusion) clause mentioned in the policy. On merits, all allegations leveled by the complainant against it were denied and prayed that the complainant be dismissed with costs.

  

5.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex.C1 & photocopies of documents Ex. C2 to C20 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.1 to 3 tendered joint affidavit of Sh. J.P.S. Sangha & Dr. Arun Sarohi Ex. OP1/A & photocopies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 tendered affidavit of Smt. Himali Batra, Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Ex.OP4/A and Certified Insurance Policy Ex.OP4/B and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also  gone through the record of the file carefully.

7.                 Admittedly, complainant approached the O.Ps. for her treatment for the first time on 13.07.2015. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the O.Ps on the basis of incorrect reports given by the laboratory of Sangha Hospital had given the wrong treatment to the complainant. As there was no improvement in her health and her condition was deteriorating day by day, her husband took her to Max Hospital at Mohali for treatment. There Doctor Seema Sharma, checked her and advised her to get her urine test and urine culture done from the laboratory of Max Hospital. Accordingly, she got her urine test done from the said laboratory and after seeing the report, the said doctor told her that there were no pus-cells and the deterioration in condition of her health, was due to taking of strong injections and antibiotics.

8.                On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. vehemently argued that the O.Ps. after the test, found that complainant had pus-cells and was suffering from UTI problem. On the basis of said test reports, the O.Ps had given the treatment. The increase or decrease in the pus-cells depends upon many factors. If the patient does not take medicine as prescribed or due to less intake of water by the patient, then there is increase in the pus-cells. He further argued that to corroborate this fact that Dr. Seema Sharma, of Max Hospital, told the complainant that O.Ps. had given wrong treatment, has not produced any document.  He further submitted that complainant had filed a complaint against the O.Ps., before the CMO, Civil Hospital, Rupnagar. But had concealed this fact purposely because as per the report of the experts, there was no negligence on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against the said O.Ps. is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

                             From the perusal of enquiry report Ex.OP-4, it is evident that the complainant had filed a complaint before the CMO, Civil Hospital, Rupnagar, against Sangha Hospital, Rupnagar. The CMO, Civil Hospital, Rupnagar, directed the SMO, Civil Hospital, Rupnagar, to conduct an enquiry on the complaint of Kamaljeet Kaur i.e. complainant against Sangha Hospital, Rupnagar. A board of Doctor was constituted by the SMO, Rupnagar. The said Board of Doctors opined that patient Kamaljeet Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh, was a case of Persistent UTI, her treatment has been done at Sangha Hospital based on clinical Symptomatology, USG, report of lab investigations and concluded that there was no medical negligence on the part of the O.Ps. It may be stated that the said expert report has not been controverted by the complainant. It is settled principle of law that the report given by the expert cannot be brushed aside unless it is proved wrong. In case of Martin F. D’souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has held that Medical Practitioner not liable for negligence simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure through error of judgment.

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint, leaving the parties to bear costs of their own.

10.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated.24.05.2016                                                                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                   (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER.