Daulat Chouhan complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that opposite parties be directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and the loss of love and affection and lot of pain suffered by him at the hands of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.

2.           The case of the complainant in brief is that on 3.11.2015 at about 10.00 P.M. his mother namely Smt.Koushlya Devi wife of Late Sh.Babu Ram, who was residing with him became ill and he contacted the ambulance no.108 to carry his mother to hospital of the opposite parties and at about 12.30 A.M. he reached the hospital of the opposite parties and got admitted his mother. At the time of admission, the staff of the opposite parties got his signatures on blank admission form and receptionist told him that Dr.B.S.Kanwar is on round but staff of the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 did not come to attend his mother, who was serious and required immediate treatment. At about 2.20 AM the staff of the opposite parties completed the formalities and one of the junior doctors i.e. opposite party no.3 came there and started the treatment of his mother. The opposite party no.3 is a B.A.M.S. and was not competent for the treatment of his mother. He requested the staff of opposite parties no.1 to inform the opposite party no.2, who is M.D. (Medicine) consultant physician and Heart Specialist regarding the serious condition of his mother, but all in vain.  The opposite party no.2 did not bother and opposite party no.3 who is only  B.A.M.S. and was not competent to give treatment to his mother, came and started treatment of his mother that  too after wasting too much time and ultimately his mother died at about 7.00 AM in the morning on 4.11.2015 due to want  of proper treatment.  He has further pleaded that by this act and conduct of the opposite parties, he suffered harassment and mental agony. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.        Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties, who appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that the patient was admitted on 4.11.2015. The complainant alongwith his mother reached at the hospital of the opposite parties and got admitted his mother. The complainant reached the hospital at 12.30 AM and the patient was referred from CHC Jawali at 12.40 am to Civil Hospital Nurpur (H.P.) and was given treatment immediately.  Actually, the opposite party no.2 rushed immediately for the treatment and did his best to save the life of the mother of the complainant. Opposite party no.2 has given emergency treatment to the complainant’s mother whose condition was extremely serious and opposite parties no.2 and 3 remain present with the patient and the staff members also did their best throughout the time of the treatment of mother of the complainant. It has further submitted that the opposite party no.2 rushed immediately when the mother of the complainant was brought for the treatment and did his level best to save the life of the mother of the complainant. It was admitted that mother of the complainant due to her serious medical condition died at about 7. A.M. The condition of the mother of the complainant was very serious at the time of admission and due to this reason the consent form was got filled up by the complainant. As per record brought by the complainant from the community health centre Jawali Distt.Kangra the condition of the mother of the complainant was very serious and she was unconscious and her body vitals were not normal. She was discharged at 12.40 A.M. The patient was serious and was at most last stage. The opposite parties at the time of the admission informed the complainant that her condition is very serious but on the request of the complainant to give medical treatment opposite parties did their best to save her life. It has next submitted that in the time consumed between the travelling from jawali to Satyam Hospital Pathankot the condition of the mother of the complainant deteriorated so much that it was at her last stage when brought to the hospital and as such on the request of the complainant the opposite parties did their best to save mother of the compliant. However, despite best efforts, the opposite parties failed to save the mother of the complainant. Thus, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.        

4.        Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, of Manisha Devi Ex.C-5 and of Rajinder Singh Ex.C-6, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.B.S.Kanwar Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.

6.      We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some documents vital for the present adjudication in spite of the ample opportunity available for the purpose. We observe that the complainant side has not produced (on records) any cogent evidence or even otherwise an acceptable documentary evidence of legal value so as to prove his allegations (Affidavit Ex.C1) as put forth in the present complaint. Somehow, he has based his allegations on layman’s interpretation(s) of the OP’s medical treatment/medicine prescriptions that are deviated/ imbalanced to support the complainant’s own version; even otherwise he has failed to prove any statutory ‘deficiency in service’ on the OP’s part also with assistance of  affidavits Ex C-5 and Ex C-6 on record and filed the present complaint but he somehow, could not establish any statutory deficiency in the OP’s treatment so as to have a favorable award, under the adjudicating Act.

7.      The produced documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 do not comprise of any cogent evidence such as: expert/medical opinion/medical-reports/treatment chart etc of other treating Hospital so as to prove the alleged ‘negligence/deficiency in service’ as has been duly stated in the present complaint. We further find and are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his allegations/charges against the OP Doctors/Hospital for any ulterior motives etc but here the OP Doctors have proved to have provided the best treatment as available with them.

8.       Lastly, we find the deposition(s) and document(s) as submitted by the opposite party doctors to be quite true, genuine & bonafide and thus accept these as admissible on records. We are also convinced with the OP’s plea that going by the medical precautionary custom and practice the present medical treatment was provided to the complainant.

9.      Finally, in the light of the all above, we do not see any actionable statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal, with no orders as to its costs.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                           (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                  President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

February 23,2018.                                                                 Member               

*MK*