Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/22/2023

RAKESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR ANU GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

MRS. SURESH SARAN & GAURAV PARTEEK DHANDA ADV.

31 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/22/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	08/02/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	31/05/2023

 

 

 

 

 

Rakesh son of Sh.Birbal, resident of House No.3009, Mauli Jagran Complex, U.T., Chandigarh.

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

Dr. Anu Gupta w/o Dr. Deepak Gupta, Clinic Address: House No. 4034, Mauli Jagran Complex, U.T. Chandigarh.

 

Residential Address: House No.988, Sector 10, Panchkula, Haryana.

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.12.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/337/2020, in the following terms:-

“4.  In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

 

 

2.      For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeals, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

3.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that his wife namely Smt. Sangeeta had visited the clinic of the OP alongwith her two neighbours for check-up.  At the time of her check-up, the OP found her to be pregnant of more than 50 days and had given medicines to her for clearing the pregnancy. However, the said pregnancy could not be cleared with medicines.  After 2-3 days, wife of the complainant again approached the OP as at that time she was bleeding and feeling pain in her stomach.  On this, OP advised her for abortion as the pregnancy was above 50 days and the same was conducted on 25.6.2020 at her clinic by the OP.  After abortion, OP charged her fee, but, did not issue any receipt. The aforesaid abortion of the wife of the complainant became septic as a result of which she again approached the OP. Later on, the complainant took his wife to Govt. Hospital, Manimajra with the same complaint, where her condition could not improve and she was referred to GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh and she remained there under treatment for 6-7 days, from where she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh on 02.08.2020, where she remained admitted for the same problem for two days and ultimately she died on 04.08.2020 due to refractory septic shock and septic abortion carried out by the OP. On 08.08.2020 when the complainant again approached the OP and informed about the said fact, she insulted the complainant. The matter was reported by the complainant to the police on 13.8.2020 (Annexure C-3), but, the police did not take any action. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

 

4.      Upon notice, the OP resisted the consumer complaint denying that the wife of complainant ever visited the clinic of the OP or that the OP conducted the abortion of the wife of the complainant.  It was alleged that the OP being a BAMS doctor, does not carry out abortions or give medicine for medical termination of pregnancy. It was further alleged that the wife of the complainant might have taken treatment from some “DAAYEE” or half nurse as a result of which infection might have developed and in order to extract money from the OP, complainant has filed the present false consumer complaint. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended and a prayer for dismissal of the Complaint was made.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the consumer Complaint of the Appellant/Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

 

7.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, along with written arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondent/OP,  with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.      It is the case of the Appellant/Complainant that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant argued that the wife of the complainant namely, Smt. Sangeeta visited the clinic of the OP, where OP conducted abortion of the wife of the complainant and due to the negligence of the OP, she had suffered from septic, which resulted in causing her death and the said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the Consumer Complaint. However, the stand taken by the Respondent/OP is that the wife of the complainant had never visited the clinic of the OP and a false Consumer Complaint has been filed in order to extract money from the OP. Faced with this situation, the onus was upon the complainant to prove the fact that his wife had visited the clinic of the OP and OP was negligent in performing the said abortion which resulted in causing death of complainant’s wife.

 

11.      Record transpires, in order to discharge the onus, the Complainant had tendered his affidavit alongwith copies of medical record (Annexure C-1) of GMSH-16, Chandigarh; medical certificate of cause of death (Annexure C-2) of PGI, Chandigarh; copy of complaint dated 09.08.2020 made to the SHO (Annexure C-3) and acknowledgement slip (Annexure C-4) issued by Chandigarh Police. However, keeping in view the totality of facts & circumstances, the best piece of evidence, which the Complainant could adduce to substantiate his claim, is certainly the prescription slip or the invoice/ bills, which he failed to produce before the Ld. Lower Commission. It was in the said back drop, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly observed that since nothing has come on record showing that the wife of the complainant ever visited the clinic of the OP or the OP had performed abortion of Smt. Sangeeta or medicines, if any, had been taken by the complainant or his wife prescribed by the OP, complainant is not able to connect the OP with the case set up in the consumer complaint and to prove that the wife of the complainant ever was treated by the OP or the OP had performed the abortion. Furthermore, the medical evidence relied upon by the Complainant i.e. admission file (Annexure C-1) issued by GMSH-16, Chandigarh and the medical certificate of cause of death (Annexure C-2), does not support his cause as the same slightly shows that before coming to the said hospitals, wife of the complainant had taken treatment from the OP. The Ld. Lower Commission has thus rightly observed that the wife of the complainant had taken any treatment or abortion was conducted by the OP, the said fact ought to have been disclosed by the complainant or his wife to the medical officers who issued Annexure C-1 and C-2. To our mind, the Appellant/complainant miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. No case is therefore made for any interference in the findings recorded qua this issue by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 

12.      No other point was urged, by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.

 

13.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

14.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

15.      The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 

16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

17.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

31^st May, 2023                                 

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”