CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/103/2015
Sh. Ashok Kharbanda
S/o Late Sh. Mehar Chand
R/o F-20, Ground Floor,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Sh. D.S. Rana
Chairman- Board of Management
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
Rajinder Nagar, Delhi-110060.
The Medical Director
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
Rajinder Nagar, Delhi-110060.
Chief Medical Officer
Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
Rajinder Nagar, Delhi-110060.
Dr. Sudhir Khanna
(Urologist-Senior Consultant)
Room No. 24, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
Rajinder Nagar, Delhi-110060. …..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Coram : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Dr. R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
- Instant complaint was filed by Sh. Ashok Kharbanda (in short complainant) against Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (in short OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that he visited the OP in 2006 with a problem of prostate and Dr. Sudhir Khanna conducted the operation and prescribed medicine course which complainant took for 8 years.
Complainant suffered from the same problem in 2013, so he visited Dr. Sudhir Khanna.On 05.08.2013, Dr. Sudhir Khanna prescribed “new medicine course”.Complainant’s situation did not improve and he visited Dr. Sudhir Khanna again on 07.05.2014 when he was advised another operation and the date mutually finalised for the operation was 28.05.2014.The doctor gave an estimate of Rs. 28,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-.Surprisingly, the hospital raised a bill of Rs. 50,000/- and since Dr. Sudhir did not sign the mediclaim letter, complainant had to pay Rs. 29,000/- from his pocket and received only Rs. 21,000/- as mediclaim. Dr. Sudhir did not only misbehave with the complainant but also did not perform the treatment well.Complainant’s condition deteriorated, so he wrote compliant to OP and OP referred the complainant to Dr. N.S. Wadhwa who got certain tests of the complainant done and after examining the test reports informed that URO flow of the complainant was not working well post operation and advised him to discuss the same with Dr. Sudhir Khanna again.When he visited Dr. Sudhir Khanna, he stated that since complainant had consulted Dr. N.S. Wadhwa, he should go to Dr. Wadhwa only for his treatment.
On his complaint to OP, complainant received a call from Dr. Shalini on behalf of Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital informing him that he should come to the hospital where his problem will be solved by Dr. Sudhir Chadha.So, complainant visited the hospital on 25.03.2015 to meet Dr. Sudhir Chadha where he was asked to pay a consultation fee of Rs. 1,500/- and certain tests were advised which further cost him Rs. 6,900/-.When complainant visited Dr. Chadha on 08.04.2015 with reports, he demanded Rs. 1,000/- as second visit charges.When complainant did not pay the said charges, he was not allowed to visit Dr. Chadha.
Complainant consulted a local doctor, Dr. S.C. Ajmani who after inspection of the reports of the OP Hospital stated that there was infection in urinal and it looked that the operation carried out by the OP was not complete.Thereafter, the complainant started visiting B.L. Kapoor Hospital for his treatment.He filed the instant complaint seeking direction to OP to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment and financial loss.
- Notice of the instant compliant was sent to OP who appeared and contested the claim vide its written statement wherein it is pleaded that OP is a distinguished hospital of the country and is known in medical field for its outstanding super specialty medical services. It is denied that complainant has any cause of action against OP. It is stated that complainant was operated in OP hospital in 2006. It is denied that any medicines were prescribed at that time. It is further stated that on 05.08.2013 complainant was advised an operation. It is denied that any new medicine course was prescribed. It is stated that the complainant was advised surgery on 05.08.2013 but he came on 28.05.2014 i.e. almost 9 months later. Complainant’s Bladder Outlet Obstruction was operated on the same day and he was discharged on 29.05.2014. The operation was uneventful. There was no pain, fever hematuria or bleeding at the time of discharge. Complainant was advised to follow up with OP Doctor in OPD on 03.06.2014. The catheter was removed on 03.06.2014. It is denied that an estimate of Rs. 28,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- was given to the complainant for the surgery. Further it is stated that the complainant was again seen by OP on 09.06.2014 and never thereafter. The allegations that he frequently visited OP are denied. It is denied that Dr. Sudhir Khanna misbehaved with him. Regarding alleged opinion of Dr. Ajmani, it is pleaded that complainant has not placed the said opinion on record. It is stated that operation was carried out as per set medical protocol and urine reports relied on by the complainant dated 05.12.2014 do not show even a single WBC and that there was no Urinary Track Infection as stated by the complainant. It is denied that there was any negligence on part of OP or any of its doctors in regard to the treatment of the complainant.
- Parties have adduced evidence by way of affidavits. We have heard Sh. Ashok Kharbanda, counsel for complainant and Sh. Subhash Kumar, counsel for OP.
- It is not in dispute that complainant was operated in OP hospital in 2006. He was alright for 8 years. Records show that no medicines were prescribed. Whereas complainant has alleged that he took medicines prescribed by OP hospital for 8 years.
- Complainant was advised operation on 05.08.2013. He was admitted on 28.05.2014 for operation of Bladder Outlet Obstruction on the same day and was discharged on 29.05.2014. Complainant has not placed on record any evidence to rebut that the operation was uneventful and his condition was satisfactory.
- Allegations of the complainant that Dr. Sudhir Khanna misbehaved with him are denied by OP and there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. Complainant got operated in OP Hospital in 2006. He visited the hospital on 05.08.2013 again. OP hospital has stated that he was alright between 2006 and 2013 and that it prescribed no medicines to the complainant after the operation in 2006. Complainant visited OP hospital again in 2013 after 8 years of his previous surgery. It indicated that he had faith in the said hospital and that the previous operation was done well. Complainant has stated that Dr. S.C. Ajmani, local doctor, mentioned that complainant had infection of urine and it looked that the operation was not carried out completely.
<>7.“(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
(4) The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam case, WLR at p.586 holds good in its applicability in India.”
- Complainant has not annexed any document in support of his allegation that OP hospital has performed an incomplete surgery. Complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion to indicate that the treatment performed by the OP hospital was not as per standard medical procedure. Applying the principles of Jacob Mathew (Supra) to the instant case, it can be seen that there is no evidence to conclude that the treating doctor at OP hospital did not exercise reasonable competence and skills in treating the ailment of the complainant. The complainant is therefore dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced onday of 2019.
