Haryana

StateCommission

CC/27/2015

SAVITA GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

VARDHMAN HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

SUDHIR KUMAR

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Complaint No.              27 of 2015

                                                Date of Institution :      27.03.2015

                                                Date of Decision :        15.07.2016

 

1.      Mrs. Savita Goyal wife of Sh. Vikas Goyal, aged about 38 years.

2.      Mr. Vikas Goyal son of M.L. Goyal, aged about 38 years.

3.      Master Inaksh Goyal son of Vikas Goyal, aged aboutg 9 years, through his father Vikas Goyal.

4.      Master Agam Goyal son of Vikas Goyal, aged about 3 years, through his father Vikas Goyal.

          All residents of Flat No.58, HEWO Apartments, Sector 15, Part II, Gurgaon.

          Permanent Address

          House No.260, Urban Estate, Phase II, Patiala.

Complainants

 

Versus

 

1.      Vardhman Hospital/Medicare Centre, #239,Sector 5, Sheetla Mata Road, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana).

 

2.      Dr. Ritu Jain, Consultant Gynaecologist, Vardhman Medicare Centre, #239, Sector 5, Sheetla Mata Road, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana) through its owner.

 

3.      Dr. (Anesthetist) (to be disclosed by OP No.2)

          c/o Vardhman Medicare Centre, #239, Sector 5, Sheetla Mata Road, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana).

 

4.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, 22, Mother House, IInd Floor, Yusuf Sarai, Commercial Complex, Delhi-110040.

 

5.      United India Insurance company Limited, Office No.7, ground Floor, 150, BBC Complex, Kilokri, Ring Road, Opposite Maharani Bagh, New Delhi -110014.

Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh

Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                  

Present :    None for the complainant

                   None for the opposite parties No.1 & 2

                   Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite party No.3

                   Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party No.4

                   Mr. P.S. Saini, Advocate for the opposite party No.5

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          This case involves allegation of medical negligence.  Vide order dated November 04^th, 2015, this Commission directed constitution of a board of Specialist Doctors, PGIMS Rohtak in the concerned field to give opinion whether there was negligence on the part of doctors, who treated Savita Goyal-complainant. The complainant, however, never appeared before the Board as intimated by the PGIMIS, Rohtak vide letter dated December 29^th, 2015.  The Board also sent letter to Mrs. Savita Goyal-complainant but the same was returned with the remark ‘Left India’. 

2.      None appeared for the complainants, even before this Commission either on the last two dates of hearing or today.  Apparently, the complainants do not seem to be interested in pursuing the complaint.  Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed in default. 

 

 

Announced 15.07.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K