BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 159 of 2014
Date of Institution : 18.11.2014
Date of Decision : 19.8.2016
Jai Parkash Batra s/o Sh.Visakhu Ram, r/o H.No.308, Gali no.5-A, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- V.P.Goyal, Prop. Holi Nursing Home, Dabwali Road,Sirsa.
- Rajender kumar, Prop./Owner of Holi Chemist inside Holi Nursing Home, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA………………. …………..PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person with Sh.Onkar Batra, Advocate.
Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for Opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainant is that on 3.8.2014, complainant was taken to Patiala Nursing Home when he felt tremors and fell down, where doctor was not available and as such, his son took him to Holi Nursing Home (Op no.1) for treatment at about 9.00 a.m.. At the time of visit to Op hospital, he was in full senses and there was no major problem. Grievance of the complainant is that he had some acid problem and feeling giddy, but op no.1 gave him some sleeping pills and applied narcotic drug injections. Thereafter, complainant gained senses on 5.8.2014 and found that a urine pipe was applied. Complainant was having constipation problem but doctor did not listen to him. On the same day, on 5.8.2014 at about 3.00 p.m. he was discharged from the hospital. As alleged, doctor charged Rs.25138/- but did not issue any bill. It is further alleged that doctor had charged the complainant with Rs.1000/- per A.C. room although A.C. was not required. Chemist of the hospital also charged in excess for the medicine and both the ops adopted mal-practices. It is also alleged that complainant spent Rs.5000/- for MRI, Rs.2500/- for CT head plain as advised by Op doctor from Global Imaging Centre, Sirsa , who had paid 60% to Op doctor. Doctor further charged Rs.5400/- for three days for I.C.U., Rs.3000/- for three days for AC room, Rs.1500/- for three days for doctor visit, Rs.1500/- for three days for Nursing care, Rs.2760/- for investigation. It is further alleged that a bill no.44 for Rs.14960/- been issued, which is undated. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and contested the case by filing reply. It is replied that the complainant had moved an application to the Civil Surgeon leveling the false allegations and his complaint was found baseless by the civil surgeon.It is further replied that Op is a well qualified MD (Medicines) doctor and was practicing for the last 20 years. As a matter of fact, complainant was brought by his son on 3.8.2014 during the night. He was unconscious and in a critical condition with perspiration, hyper ventilation and involuntary tonic clonic generalized movements and as such was given the treatment in emergency and on 5.8.2014 the complainant was discharged in a stable condition with a further advice for follow up at higher medical institute. The patient was treated according to the set norms as per the circumstances and as per the indications. The complainant is having a long history of hyper tension and diabetes and had been undergoing treatment of some other physicians and the op had admitted the patient in ICU according to the critical condition. The son of the complainant was also apprised of the complainant’s condition. There is no deficiency on the part of Ops. Catheter was applied to maintain the general parameters and to watch the functioning of the vital organs. It is further replied that Ops have charged Rs.14960/- on account of ICU, room charges, nursing care and investigation etc. etc. The medicines were purchased from the chemist shop. It is also replied that complainant was advised for CT Head and MRI Brain as he was brought to the hospital unconscious. The complainant is issuing false threats that he is a retired A.E.T.O. and would involve the Ops in false cases of Income Tax. Ops further denied the remaining allegations.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence
his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of his son Ex.C2 and copy of bill Ex.C3, whereas the Ops tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copy of letter dt. 3.12.2014 Ex.R2, copy of enquiry report dt. 21.11.2014 Ex.R3, prescription slip Ex.R4 and copy of bed head ticket Ex.R5.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
5. To prove the alleged wrong treatment by the Op doctor, there is nothing on the record rather Op doctor placed on record a copy of letter Ex.R2 and enquiry report Ex.R3. As per the enquiry conducted by Dr.Rahul Garg, Deputy Civil Surgeon and Dinesh Rana Drugs Control Officer, Sirsa, treatment given by the Op doctor was correct and there is no Government control on the treatment charges taken by the owners of the hospitals. Complainant also failed to produce any bill of medicine in order to prove the excess charged by the op no.2 as alleged in the complaint. Moreover, complainant himself produced a bill issued by the Op doctor Ex.C3 and according to it, failed to prove the allegations of excess charging as alleged in the complaint.
6. As a result of above discussion, we are of considered view that there is no deficiency on the part of Op doctor in treating the complainant and complainant also failed to prove the allegations of wrong treatment and excess charges. Resultantly, complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 19.8.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
