Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/985/2015

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suman W/o Surjeet Meghwal - Opp.Party(s)

Narendra Chaudhary

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 985 /2015

 

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Regional Office Sahara Bhawan,Tonk Road, Jaipur through its authorised signatory Administrative Officer

 

Vs.

 

Smt.Suman w/o Surjeet r/o Hardayalpura, Tehsil Pilibanga, Distt. Sriganganagar & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 29.01.2016

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr. Raj Kumar Jain counsel for the appellant

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

 

The appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Sriganganagar dated 6.7.2015.

 

The short facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent was having stomach pain. She went to present appellant to have her ultrasound done. She paid Rs. 500/- for the same and after ultrasound the report was given that she was having three stones in Gallbladder which has to be operated but when the complainant respondent was operated by Dr.Devendra Grover, it was found that she was not even having the Gallbladder hence, the report of the appellant was false and it was deficiency in service.

 

The contention of the respondent no.2 was that he was not authorised doctor for having ultrasound and further he has fixed the liability on Dr.Devendra Grover that he has not conducted the operation well and he could not search out the Gallbladder as he was not a competent doctor.

 

3

 

After hearing the contention of the rival parties, the court below has come to the conclusion that respondent no.2 was negligent and liability has been fixed on the appellant as he was the insurer.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.

 

It is not in dispute that ultrasound was done by respondent no.2 and for which Rs.500/- fees has been charged and after ultrasound the report was given that the complainant was having three stones in gallbladder whereas on operation Dr.Devendra Grover has found that complainant was not having even the gallbladder and during course of proceedings on the request of respondent no.2 the complainant was get C.T.Scan and report of C.T.Scan also reveals that the complainant was not having gallbladder. Thus, the deficiency in service rather unfair trade practice is proved against respondent no.2.

 

The contention of the appellant is that respondent no.2 was not competent to conduct ultrasound. The court below has relied upon II (2014) CPJ 368 (NC) Madaan Surgical & Maternity Hospital Vs. Santosh & ors. where it has been held

4

 

that if person is not authorise or competent to have ultrasound it will amount to deficiency in service. The court below has categorically scanned the evidence submitted before it and thereafter a reasonable order has been passed.

 

The appellant has relied upon II (2014) CPJ 368 where it has been held that injury should have been suffered due to conduct of the doctor, here in the present case the complainant has to undergo operation only due to the report of respondent no.2. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.2 was proved and the court below has rightly held so.

 

There is no ground for interference in the reasoning and findings of the court below. The appeal is groundless and liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm