Haryana

Ambala

CC/283/2011

PINKI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH DIRECTOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT - Opp.Party(s)

Baldev Singh

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                               Complaint case no.        : 283 of 2011

                                                              Date of Institution          : 05.09.2011

                                                             Date of decision              : 14.02.2017

          Pinki Devi wife of Dhani Ram son of Bholi Ram, resident of village         Kangwal, Tehsil and District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

1.       State of Haryana through Director, Health Department, Haryana, Panchkula.

2.       Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala City.

3.       Dr. Bhawan, Primary Health Centre, village Naggal, Distt. Ambala,         Haryana.

4.       Nidhi Gupta, Staff Nurse, Primary Health Centre, Village Naggal, Distt. Ambala, Haryana.

 ….…. Respondents.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                       

 

 

Present:       Sh. Baldev Singh, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Karmesh Bhardwaj, ADA for the State on behalf of OP No. 1  and 2.

                   Sh. Mehar Singh, counsel for Op No. 4.

                   OP No. 3 already exparte

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that on 09.05.2011 labour pain was started to the complainant and she was taken to Primary Health Centre, Village Naggal, Distt. Ambala for the purpose her delivery under the supervision of Dr. Bhawna & Staff Nurse Nidhi Gupta and the complainant went under sever labour pain whole night but Dr. Bhawna & Staff Nurse Nidhi Gupta kept on assuring her & her-in-law that the delivery will be conducted at PHC, Naggal itself without any problem and she was not allowed to go in other hospital. On 10.05.2011 at about 3:00p.m. Pinki Devi/complainant gave birth to a female child, but Dr. Bhawna & Staff Nurse Nidhi Gupta, negligently, cut a wrong nerve of complainant during the process of her delivery due to which a heavy bleeding was started to her and swelling occurred on her whole body and Dr. Bhawna & Staff Nurse Nidhi Gupta Nervously told the attendants of the complainant that the condition of the patient became serious, so take her to civil Hospital, Ambala City but after checking-up the patient in GH, Ambala told that the patient is much serious, so take her to PGI, Chandigarh. Further submitted that the complainant was taken to Medical College & Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh, where the doctors told that a wrong nerve of the complainant has been cut, due to which heavy blood was transferred to the complainant at Medical College & Hospital, Sector -32, Chandigarh and she remained admitted there from 10.05.2011 to 16.05.2011 and the complainant spent more than one lac rupees on her treatment and all this is happen due to the negligence of Dr. Bhawna & staff Nurse Nidhi Gupta and chances of giving birth to a child in further by the complainant has also been reduced due to this incident. Further submitted that the complainant is working in Anganbari, but due to this incident she could not attended her duties for 3-4 months, as she remained bed ridden during this period. As such the complainant also suffered a huge financial loss due to negligence on the part of OPs No. 3 and 4. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainant has never visited PHC Naggal (Ambala) for getting herself regular check up of pregnancy during Ante Natel period, before delivery and she failed herself get examined regularly by lady medical officer of PHC Naggal during Antenatel period, as per rule i.e. every monthly during 1^st, 2^nd, trimester and every 15^th day during 7^th month, every weekly during 8^th and 9^th month of pregnancy, as per record of Ante Natel Card, no regular entries of progress. Only blank Natel Card obtained from Village Kangwal on 08.09.2010 is enclosed herewith, which is of no value and purposeless because there no record of condition of foetus i.e. FHS/Lie and presentation of foetus and ignored herself. Further submitted that delivery was conducted free of costs, all medicines were given free of cost and on notice of minor swelling, opposite side of episiotomy, the duty staff nurse Nidhi Gupta informed the emergency Duty Doctor i.e. Dr. Bhawana timely and the doctor ordered to referred the complainant to Govt. Hospital, Ambala city, by govt. Ambulence immediately “Free of costs” and as per the statement of complainant referred the complainant to PGI, Chandigarh, but instead of going to PGI, Chandigarh, the complainant went to Govt. Medical College Hospital, Sector -32, Chandigarh and submitted bills of Rs. 2944/- only, and demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- malafide. If the complainant was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, they migh have no expenditure and the discharge card of GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh does not show any cutting of Nerve and heavy blood loss. It is therefore, humbly prayed that while medical aid/delivery process/ medicines/ Ambulance has been provided “free of costs”, so that the present complaint does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, liable to be dismissed with costs.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1-A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-9 and close his evidence. On the other hand, respondent tendered affidavits as Annexure R-X along with documents as annexure R-1 to R-13 and close his evidence.

4.                Without going on the merit of the case, we are coming on the point that whether complaint fall under the definition of Consumer Protection Act or not? In view of the contents of the complainant that the complainant himself admitted on 10.05.2011 at about 3:00p.m., the complainant gave birth to a female child, but Dr. Bhawna & Staff Nurse Nidhi Gupta, negligently, cut a wrong nerve of complainant during the process of her delivery due to which a heavy bleeding was started to her and swelling occurred on her whole body and Dr. Bhawna referred the patient in GH, Ambala and further doctor on duty of GH, Ambala referred the complainant in PGI, Chandigarh but the complainant was taken to Medical College & Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh and medical aid/delivery process/ medicines/ Ambulance has been provided “free of costs.

                   We have gone through the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(I) (d) (i) which reads as under:

                   “Consumer means any person who-

(i)                “buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or party paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any use of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”.

(ii)               “Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of ) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose)”

5.                We have also gone through the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case title India Medical Association Vs. VP Shanta 1996(1) Consumer Law today Volume-7 has held that the Medical Service render free of charges to everybody available the said services does not fall within definition of service. Further held that Medical Officer-employed for rending the medical service to the employer–is excluding being under a contract of service as per Section 2(1)(o) (c) (d) (g) and 14 of Consumer Protection Act. Hob’ble Supreme Court further held that service rendered at a government hospital/health centre/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing of the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service – is outside the purview of the expression ‘Service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital.

                   Similarly in the present case, (complainant has not paid any consideration for his treatment to the Medical Officer of the Government hospital. As per records, delivery was conducted “free of costs, all medicines were given free of costs and on notice of minor swelling, the doctor ordered to refer the complainant to Govt. Hospital, Ambala city and the doctor on duty of Civil Hospital, Ambala City & as per the statement of complainant, referred the complainant to PGI, Chandigarh but instead of going to PGI, Chandigarh, the complainant went to Govt. Medical College Hospital, Sector -32, Chandigarh. Hence, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and hired the services free of charges. Hence, the complaint devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :14.02.2017                                                   Sd/-

                                                                             (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                           Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member