Haryana

Ambala

CC/78/2016

Daya Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shivi Digital X-Ray - Opp.Party(s)

S.N. Kaushik

23 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                     FORUM, AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  78 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         :  05.02.2016

                                                          Date of decision   :  23.02.2018

 

Daya Singh s/o Sh. Mewa Singh r/o Village Sullar, Tehsil & District Ambala.

    ……. Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

 

1.       Shivi Digital X-Ray, Ultrasound, Coloured Doppler and Mammography Centre, opposite Telephone Exchange, Near Arya School Chowk, Ambala City through Dr. Mrs. Rekha Goel & Dr. Subhash Goel.

2.       Dr. Mrs. Rekha Goel, Shivi Digital X-Ray, Ultrasound, Coloured Doppler and Mammography Centre, opposite Telephone Exchange, Near Arya School Chowk, Ambala Chowk.

3.       Dr. Subhash Goel, Shivi Digital X-ray, Ultrasound, Coloured Dopppler and Mammography Centre, opposite Telephone Exchange, Near Arya Chowk, Ambala City.

4.       United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Polytechnic Chowk, Bal Bhawan Road, Ambala City.

 

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President,

Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                           

 

 

Present:       Sh. S.P.Kaushish, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. H.S.Garg, counsel for the Ops No. 1 to 3.

Sh. Mahinder Bindal, counsel for OP No.4.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant was having the problem of pain in abdomen and blood was coming in the urine. Due to pain in the abdomen, complainant conducted the ultra sound from your centre on 31.08.2015 and they have given the report and shown the Calculous as Nil detected in right and left kidneys and told to complainant that there is n problem in the kidneys etc. as per report. He suffered regular severe pain in the abdomen and went to the M.M.Hospital for taking treatment and the doctor referred the complainant to the Aggarwal Digital X-Ray Centre for conducting another ultra sound, where the he got conducted the ultra sound on 08.09.2015 and found 17 mm Calculous in renal pelvis and 5-6 smaller calculi. Thereafter, the complainant shown the report to the doctor and  doctor told   him that the operation will be conducted as there is large calculous in the kidney due to this reason the blood was coming in the urine and if the operation will not be conducted immediately there was chances of infection in the kidney. So due to the compelled circumstances complainant has to conduct  the operation  in the Kapoor Hospital, Ambala City and incurred lot of expenses. Due to the false report  given by the abovesaid Ops the complainant suffered a lot and he had to run from piller to post for his medication and if the OPs would have given the correct report, complainant would have taken proper treatment on time and the need of operation have not arisen. A legal notice served to the OPs on 20.10.2015 and Ops given a vague and evasive reply to the legal notice. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, no cause of action and the complaint is wholly false and frivolous. On merits, OPs No.1 & 3 stated that there was no such complaint of stomach ache by the complainant. He had visited the premises for getting an ultrasound conducted as regular checkup and not an advise of any doctor. The patient was examined in detail and the report was prepared with due care and handed over to the patient.  

Upon notice, OP No.4 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that  the present complaint is not supported by any expert report or opinion to prove any negligence being caused in the alleged diagnose/report of the complainant  on the part of the alleged doctor. OP No.4 denies the liability under the alleged policy till the supply of the copy of alleged insurance policy and its confirmation from its issuing office. However, the liability, if any, the same  is subject to terms and conditions of the alleged insurance policy. The complainant failed to explain as to how his alleged diagnosis of 10 days earlier could have save him from the alleged surgery but has made this false and imaginative assertion just to make a case against a reputed doctor. The OP No.4 accepts the written statement filed  by the OPs No.1 to 3 with regard  to the alleged ultra sound and report provided to the complainant and the same be read as part of this written statement. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-7 and close his                          evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 have also tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A alongwith documents as annexure R-1 to R-2 and closed their evidence. OP No.4 has closed his evidence by way of statement.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. Counsel for the complainant has argued that due to  false report given by OP No.2, the complainant suffered a lot and  complainant would have taken the proper treatment in time  and need of the operation has not arisen and complainant would have been cured on the oral  medicine only. On the other hand counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3  argued that as per the treatment record Annexure C-2 Dr. Sudhir Kapoor has operated the patient and  stone was removed on the basis of the second report as per Annexure C-4 dated 08.09.2015 and further argued that ultrasound of the abdomen is only screen test not for confirmation for disease as usually there remains variation in the laboratory  tests.

It is admitted fact that the complainant had visited the Diagnostic Centre of OP No.2 & 3 himself without any reference of any medical officer  for ultrasound of the abdomen. The OP No.1 conducted the ultrasound of the complainant on 31.08.2015 as Annexure C-6. As per the report both kidneys size and shape were normal. There was no Hydronephrosis in either of the kidney nor any stone deducted by the OP No. 2. However the patient got another ultrasound on 08.09.2015 after period of  8 days from Dr. Manisha Aggarwal, Digital X-ray Centre  as Annexure C-4. As per the report, size of the  stone was found 17mm in the left kidney renal pelvis but there was no Hydronephrosis seen. Since, there was no HDN (Hydronephrosis) either in the kidney  on the first examination as well as the second examination (ultrasound reports). Usually, it has been seen when  such big size of stone is present  in the renal pelvis . There is every chance of HDN (Hydronephrosis) but in the both reports there was no HDN and size of the kidneys were normal. Sometime there is possibility one can may miss the findings of the stone.

Counsel for the OP No.4 drawn our attention that the  ultrasound report C-6 it is mentioned that this report  is not meant for Medico-legal purpose and above mentioned  findings are only Sonological findings and not the complete  Pathology. Please  do correlate with Clinical Findings and other  investigation reports  for final disgnosis and management as any finding may be missed or over diagnosed due to technical limitations of ultrasound examination and also relied upon the judgment delivered by  Hon’ble National  Consumer Redressal Commission in case titled Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Patil & Others Vs. Dr. Vinay Tule and Others decided on 17.07.2017 in first appeal no.1291 of 2017 and Hon’ble National Consumer Commission has held that “Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-Medical negligence-DNA analysis- Complainant  had consultation  with a Obstetrician and Gynecologist  who had drawn CVB sample  and sent  to OP laboratory for DNA analysis- Plea of complainant  that, the OP had  given wrong report of CVB sample and hence it was a case of medical negligence-plea of OP that the report  clearly mentioned about limitation of the testing as “Although  all precautions  are taken  during DNA tests  the currently available data  indicate  that the technical error  rate for all types of DNA analysis is approximately 1%-it is important  that all clinicians of person requesting DNA diagnostic test are aware of these data before acting upon these results.”Thus the report had to be correlated clinically”.

5.                In view of the above discussion that we do not find any deficiency on the part of the Ops No. 1 to 3. They have conducted the ultrasound report Annexure C-6 fairly there is no fault on the part of the OPs No. 2 & 3. Hence, there is no substance in the present complaint. Same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

  Announced on : 23.02.2017

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)      (D.N. ARORA)   

       Member                                        Member                          President