Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/14/140

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sharma Clinic & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Pardeep Sahai, Adv

13 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 140 of 05.11.2014

                                 Date of decision               :  13.03.2015

                                                                                                                               Jaspal Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Shamsher Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of Village Marauli Kalan,Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

                                                                             ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Sharma Clinic, Kainaur Road, Morinda, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib,

    District Rupnagar through Dr. Sunil Kumar, MD Physician & Dr. Mrs.

    Aditya Bansal, MD Physician.

2. Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma c/o Sharma Clinic, Kainaur Road, Morinda,

    Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

3.  Dr. Mrs. Aditya Bansal, c/o Sharma Clinic, Kainaur Road, Morinda,

    Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

                                                                            ....Opposite Parties

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SH. V.K. KHANNA, MEMBER

MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Pardeep Sahai Advocate, counsel for the complainant

Smt. Seema Moudgil Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties 

 

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Jaspal Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’ only) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To pay Rs.10,00,000/- as medical expenses incurred by him,

ii)      To pay Rs.80,000 as damages,

iii)     To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

           

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was having knee problem, for which he contacted the O.Ps. and took treatment from them for the period from 26.7.2012 to 14.3.2014. The O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 advised him to get his medical tests/ultrasound conducted for the said ailment, which were got conducted by him by spending more than Rs.1,00,000/-.  Then the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 started his treatment and as per prescription of the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3, he had taken medicines, but by taking the medicines, as prescribed by the said O.Ps., his both hips started malfunctioning and his condition started deteriorating day by day, he was unable to move & walk & was confined to bed and suffered pain in both the hips. When he approached the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 and told them about his condition, both of them showed their helplessness. Then, he approached Rattan Maternity and Nursing Home, Ludhiana, and the doctors of the said Nursing Home started his treatment, many tests/ultrasound were got conducted and his both hips were replaced by the said Nursing Home, for which he had to spend more than Rs.4,00,000/- and is still under the treatment and taking medicines as prescribed by the doctors of the said Nursing Home. Due to fault of the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 he had to remain on bed for about 2 years. In this way, he has spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- on his treatment. He had also approached the O.Ps. and asked them to pay him a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest towards compensation, but they refused to accede to his request. There is clear-cut deficiency in service and adoption of mal-practice on the part of the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3, due to which he has suffered mental & physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, a joint written statement was filed on behalf of all the O.Ps. taking objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the same is liable to be dismissed, as there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.; that the complainant is a habitual litigant having on litigation in order to meet out his greed and the present complaint has also been filed with the same intention to harass & extract money from the O.Ps., which deserves to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the O.Ps. are running the hospital, but it is denied that the O.P. No.3 is working with the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2. It is also stated to be wrong that the O.P. No. 3 had ever given treatment to the complainant or that O.P. No.3 is doing the job with the O.Ps. No. 1 & 2. It is stated that the complainant had concealed the fact that he was suffering from thyroid, liver, uric acid related problems alongwith so many other ailments, which is evident from the medical tests undergone by him. It is denied that he had spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- on his tests or Rs.3,00,000/- on the medicines prescribed by O.P. No. 2. It is stated that the O.P. No. 3 had never examined the complainant nor prescribed any medicines to him. The history of the complainant shows that he was irregular for his examination and treatment. He has narrated a false & wrong story in the complaint.  Since there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., therefore, question for making of any request by the complainant to the O.Ps. to pay any amount did not arise at all. There is no evidence on the record to prove that any treatment/medicine prescribed by the O.Ps. can cause hip joint problem, as alleged by the complainant. He has filed this false & frivolous complaint with the motive to harass and humiliate the O.Ps. in the eyes of general public at large. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with special costs of Rs.2,00,000/-.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit  Ex. C1, affidavit of Sh. Darshan Singh Ex. C84 & documents Ex. C2 to C83 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. tendered affidavit of Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma of Sharma Clinic, Morinda Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma Ex. OP-2, affidavit of Dr. Aditya Bansal  Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file, including the written arguments filed by the counsel for the complainant, carefully.

 

6.                 The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was having knee problem, for which he took treatment from the O.Ps. After taking the medicines, as prescribed by the said O.Ps., problem developed in his both the hips, due to which he was suffering from pain and was confined to bed only. Ultimately, he had to get his both hips replaced. All this happened due to the wrong treatment given by the O.Ps., therefore, they be directed to pay the expenses incurred by him on account of medical negligence on their part and they also be directed to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses.

 

7.                To this effect, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that the complainant approached the O.Ps., for taking treatment for  hypothyroidism, fatty liver, uric acid and so many other ailments, as was evident from the medical tests undergone by him and also from the prescription slips, Ex.C64, C65, Ex.C67 to 69, Ex.C75 to C79, placed on record by the complainant himself, it is evident that the O.Ps. had treated/prescribed medicines for the above mentioned diseases and not for knee problem. From the said prescription slips, it is apparent that alongwith the medicines for the said ailments, he was also prescribed pain killers & supplements etc. to boost his energy. From the said prescriptions, it is also clear that he was not regular for the follow-up. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on record anything to show that any medicines prescribed by the O.Ps. can cause problem in the hip, as alleged by him. The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any medical negligence/deficiency in service on the part of any of the O.Ps. in treating/prescribing the medicines to him. He has not even produced on record the affidavit of the doctor from whom he had taken treatment and got replaced his hips, lateron. In the case of ‘Parminder Singh vs. General Hospital and Anr.’ 2005 (2) CPJ 205, it has been held by the Hon’ble U.T. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh that for proving a case of medical negligence, expert opinion is required to rebut pleas/deposition of a doctor and that onus of proving medical negligence lies on person, who sets up a case. The learned counsel submitted that no medical negligence on the part of the O.Ps. in treating/prescribing the medicines to the complainant, having been proved, therefore, the complaint being without any merit, be dismissed with costs.

 

8.                As per the allegations of the complainant, after taking the treatment/medicines as prescribed by the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3, problem developed in his both hips, due to which, he was confined to bed, and ultimately, had to get his both the hips replaced. All that happened due to the sole medical negligence on the part of the O.Ps. while treating/prescribing the medicines to him. In support of his allegations, the complainant has produced his own affidavit and that of one Darshan Singh, who is not a medical expert. It is pertinent to mention here that the medical negligence cannot be assumed/presumed, on the basis of allegations alone, but the same is to be proved, beyond any doubt, by leading any expert evidence, in the shape of medical literature on the subject or medical report/opinion of some medical person, expert, in the relevant filed. But the complainant has not produced any document to show that problem in his hips developed due to taking of treatment/medicines, as prescribed by the O.Ps. Even he has not preferred to produce the affidavit of the doctor, who subsequently, treated him and had replaced his hips, to support his allegations. Thus, in the absence of any evidence, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the O.Ps. had committed any negligence/deficiency in service while treating/prescribing the medicines to him. In the case of ‘Baljinder Singh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.’ 2011(4) CLT 287, where the petitioner did not produce any medical evidence or expert to support his case, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that mere affidavits claiming negligence cannot override the specific medical evidence to the contrary.

 

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

 

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

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 13.03.2015                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

(V.K. KHANNA)                    (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                    MEMBER                                MEMBER.   

e Nw�Ȟ�