BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 154 of 2019
Date of Institution : 27.03.2019
Date of Order : 09.01.2020
Arti @ Arti Agnihotri aged about 40 years wife of Sh. Anil Kumar son of Sh. Dinesh Chandra, resident of C/o Neeraj Pahuja, Gali Tower Wali, Khanna Colony, Sirsa.
……Complainant/ Applicant.
Versus.
- Sanjivani Hospital (Multi & Super specialty Hospital), Under Railway Over Bridge, Hisar Road, Sirsa through its Managing Director.
- Dr. Bhavna Aggarwal, D.G.O., Sanjivani Hospital (Multi Super Specialty Hospital), Under Railway Over Bridge, Hisar Road, Sirsa.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Azad Bhawan Jhandewala Ext. New Delhi through its Local branch Manager, branch office at Sangwan Chowk, Near HDFC Bank, 1st Floor, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
- The United Insurance Company Ltd., 42-C, 3rd Floor, Moolchand Commercial Complex, New Delhi- 110024 through its Local Branch Manager, Sirsa, office situated at City Thana Road, Above Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA………………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for complainant/ applicant.
Sh. J. D. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Sh. Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
Heard on the application under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for condonation of delay moved on behalf of complainant/ applicant.
2. It is averred in the application that complainant has filed present complaint against the opposite parties and same is likely to be accepted. That earlier, the complaint/ application with regard to same subject matter in between same parties was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Sirsa but due to non availability of the Chairman of the PLA, Sirsa the same could not be decided on merits and therefore, the same has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.1.2019 with the permission to file fresh complaint. It is further averred that this is the second complaint before this Forum as the first complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Forum on some technical ground vide order dated 22.2.2019. That however, the present complaint has been filed after some delay but the reason of delay is fully explained above and as per rule of law laid down by various superior courts and forums, the delay, if any is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice.
2. In reply to application filed on behalf of ops no.1 and 2, it has been submitted that husband of complainant filed complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat, Sirsa and same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.1.2019. The factum of dismissal as withdrawn of second complaint is a matter of record. It is necessary to mention here that while withdrawing the complaint from PLA, Sirsa permission has been sought to file fresh complaint. It is relevant to mention here that no permission was granted to file fresh complaint before this Forum. The permission to file fresh complaint was granted to the husband of complainant and not to the complainant. It has been further submitted that delay has not been explained and complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Arti Agnihotri, the complainant was not granted any liberty to file fresh complaint. So, the delay cannot be condoned.
3. In reply to application filed by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. op no.3, it has been submitted that contents of para no.1 of the application are admitted to the extent of filing of complaint before this Forum, but the same is liable to be dismissed as per facts mentioned in the written statement, which may be read as part of this reply as well in case it is required to be filed. The provisions are meant only to protect the bonafide litigations, who are not able to proceed within stipulated period and not to protect the person likewise complainant, hence complaint is not within the prescribed period of limitation and thus is liable to be dismissed.
4. The op no.4 United India Insurance Company also resisted the application in its reply on the same grounds as that of op no.3.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as judgment relied by learned counsel for complainant carefully.
6. The perusal of the complaint reveals that complainant has filed this complaint with the allegations that she was pregnant and was getting regular treatment/ checkup from ops no.1 and 2 from very beginning of her pregnancy i.e. from the month of February, 2015. Thereafter, she was admitted with op no.1 on 15.9.2015 for delivery of child on the advice given by op no.2. However, the complainant delivered a male child at 06.16 A.M on 16.09.2015 by way of caesarian operation, but during the caesarian operation, due to negligence of op no.2 and other related para staff of op no.1, the condition of complainant/ patient became abnormal and she suffered intolerable pain and left uterine artery bleeding due to unwanted cut negligently given by op no.2 during caesarian operation. It is further alleged that on account of this negligent act of the ops no.1 and 2, the complainant suffered severe pain and her blood pressure became very low and she became unconscious. However, the ops in order to put of the complainant simply gave the symptom medicines and assured them that within a two days, the problem of complainant i.e. bleeding etc. would be OK and gain its normal position automatically. In this way, the ops did not disclose the said problem to the complainant out of their negligence and careless surgery. The complainant was kept in hospital from 15.9.2015 to 19.9.2015 and meanwhile, the op no.2 transfused 5 units PRBC, 4 units Platelets, 4 units FFP and also other medicines. It is further alleged that however there was no recovery in the health/ bleeding problem of complainant. That on 18.9.2015 in the night, the ops no.1 and 2 out of their cleverness even on that day did not disclose and explain the complainant/ applicant that major problem of uncontrolled bleeding is due to the unwanted cut in left uterus artery, caused negligently by op no.2 and the ops no.1 and 2 called Dr. Promila Bansal, Gynae, Bansal Hospital, Sirsa and further suggested to wait and watch but when other family members of applicant strictly enquired about the actual problem of complainant, than ops no.1 and 2 misbehaved with the applicant and her relatives and flatly announced that complainant will survive only for one or two days only. Thereafter, her husband asked the ops no.1 and 2 to discharge his wife for getting expert medical advice and treatment from any other reputed Multi specialty hospital but ops no.1 and 2 were raising demands of more money and started lingering the matter on one pretext or another and they were having no interest in the life of complainant. It is further alleged that thereafter, her husband paid all the money demanded by ops no.1 and 2 and also requested to provide an ambulance on urgent basis but they flatly refused to provide the same and husband of complainant arranged the Ambulance from outside and took the complainant to Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon on 19.9.2015. The ops no.1 and 2 charged about Rs.1,00,000/- including Rs.43,500/- as professional fee, blood test charges, other diagnostic charges and expenses of blood units. The complainant also incurred Rs.10,000/- on the ambulance. The complainant remained under treatment in Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon from 19.9.2015 to 1.10.2015 and incurred total expenses of Rs.8,30,000/-. The medical officer of Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon explained the applicant that this problem is due to negligence of the doctor and para staff who conducted caesarian operation.
7. There are specific allegations of medical negligence against ops no.1 and 2 in the complaint leveled by complainant. The perusal of this complaint reveals that act of negligence was allegedly committed by ops no.1 and 2 in the month of September, 2015, but however, present complaint has been filed by complainant on 27.3.2019 after lapse of three and half years. Further, copy of the order dated 10.1.2019 reveals that an application under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was filed by husband of complainant namely Anil Kumar son of Sh. Dinesh Chandra against ops no.1 to 4 and same was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to file fresh petition/ civil suit in any appropriate Forum/ Court, if he so desires. The husband of complainant has not filed any complaint before this Forum as per order dated 10.1.2019 passed by PLA, Sirsa, but however, present complaint has been filed by complainant Smt. Arti who has not filed any application before PLA, Sirsa. So it appears from the record that complainant had cause of action on 16.9.2015 when she gave birth to a male child by caesarian operation and thereafter she faced certain complications, but however, present complaint has been filed by complainant on 27.3.2019 and complainant has failed to explain sufficient cause of not filing the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action. In this regard Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, is reproduced as under:-
24A. Limitation period-
- The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
8. The complainant has not shown any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action and complainant does not deserve for condonation of delay. As such, application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. Consequently complaint filed by complainant is also dismissed. The judgment of the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula in case titled as Ishwar Singh vs. N.C. Jindal Institute of Medical Care and Research Centre & others, 2016 (2) CLT 432 relied upon by learned counsel for complainant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:09.1.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
