Delhi

North East

CC/307/2015

Tajdar Siddiqui - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. S.B Singh Shastri Director of Earth Charitable Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 307/15

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Tajdar Siddiqui S/o Sh. Sadiq Ali R/o C-238, St. No. 15, Old Mustafabad, Delhi-94	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Dr. S.B. Singh Shastri Director of Earth Charitable Hospital 468/1, Main 25 futa Road, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, New Mustafabad, Delhi-94   Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary Both 1 & 2 at 468/1, Main 25 Futa Road Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, New Mustafabad, Delhi-94	Opposite Party No.1         Opposite Party No.2

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

25.08.15 01.02.23 10.04.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.
Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant got admitted her daughter in Opposite Party No.1 hospital on 05.09.14. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 and 2 told that her daughter will be discharged from hospital after 3 to 4 days. After 3-4 days Complainant was told that her daughter required further treatment which required another 3-4 days hospitalization. On 12.09.14 Complainant again asked to discharge her daughter but Opposite Parties again told him that recovery of her daughter would take another 3-4 days. On evening of 16.09.14 both Opposite Parties informed the Complainant that her daughter was not well and at about 8:15 p.m. informed Complainant that her daughter was no more. The Complainant further submitted that at 4:00 p.m. on the same day her daughter was quite well and seemed to be good. Thereafter the Complainant dialled 100 PCR and post mortem of her deceased daughter was conducted in GTB hospital, Delhi. On the post mortem report, it was found that deceased Sabila had septicaemic shock as a result of infection of internal abdominal organs. After the post mortem, the report was that “surgically created infection prick mark (plenritic tap) reddish in colour, three in number present over right upper lateral back. The upper most prick mark is 16.5 cm betone shoulder top and 13 cm from midline between 4^th and 5^th rib. Second prick mark was 18 cm belove shoulder top and 13.5 cm from midline between 5^th and 6^th rib. Third prick mark was 18.5 cm belove shoulder top and 13.5 cm from midline between 5^th and 6^th rib. All the prick marks were communicating with the plenral cavity. It is also the case of the Complainant that at the time of admitting his deceased daughter in the hospital he had got ultra sound of his daughter done and the report was normal and there was no serious infection in internal organs of deceased daughter. The deceased daughter of Complainant was admitted in hospital on 05.09.14 after 4-5 days, the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 informed the father of the deceased that the water had accumulated in her ribs and they would winkle out the water from her ribs by using injection/needle, during the said process of winkling out the water by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2, the blood was oozing from her abdominal organs. The Complainant stated that after ultra sound of her deceased daughter Opposite Party No.1 and 2 did not diagnose the disease and start the treatment without diagnosing her disease. The Complainant requested several times Opposite Party No.1 and 2 that there was some serious problem with his daughter. The Complainant told them that he could shift his daughter to some other hospital but Opposite Party No.1 and 2 refused to do the same. All the bills raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 during the treatment of the deceased till her death, the father of the deceased paid all the bills to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2. The Complainant stated that due to negligency of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 he had to suffer mental pain, agony, harassment and financial loss. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. He has prayed for Rs. 15,00,000/- for mental harassment and for Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that the case does not fall in the Consumer Protection Act as the Opposite Party No.1 runs a Charitable Hospital and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. It is denied that the daughter of the Complainant was admitted in the hospital on 05.09.14. It is stated that the daughter of the Complainant was admitted in the hospital on 16.09.14. It is stated that no charges were taken for the treatment as the hospital run by Opposite Party No.1 is Charitable Hospital. It is stated that the deceased girl was admitted in the hospital on 16.09.14 and on the same day she was discharged as was referred to hospital having the facility of ICU. However, the family members of the girls did not take her to other hospital on the pretext that they were waiting other family members to come. The Opposite Party No.1 has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated that the Complainant does not come within the definition of consumer as the hospital being run by Opposite Party No.1 is a Charitable Hospital. It is stated that Opposite Party No.2 is a visiting doctor of Opposite Party No.1 and he used to visit upon specific call.  It is stated that on 16.09.14 he was called for treatment of Complainant’s daughter. Some tests were conducted and treatment was given to the daughter of the Complainant. It is also stated that the daughter of the Complainant was admitted in the hospital on 16.09.14 and on the same day she was discharged and was referred to the hospital having ICU facility. Opposite Party No.2 has also supported the assertions made by Opposite Party No.1 in the written statement. Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. The Complainant has also filed affidavit of his son Sh. Abdul Kalam, in which the case of the Complainant has been supported.  

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. In order to prove their case they have filed their affidavits wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and 2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by parties.
8. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the case is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, as the hospital run by the Opposite Party No.1 is a Charitable Hospital. In order to prove his plea the Opposite Parties have not filed even a single document to suggest that the hospital run by Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Dr. S.B. Singh Shastri is a Charitable Hospital. There is nothing on record to show that the said Hospital is a Charitable Hospital. Therefore, the plea raised by the Opposite Parties cannot be accepted.
9. The case of the Complainant is that he admitted his daughter Sabila in the hospital of Opposite Party No.1 on 05.09.14. In order to support his contention, he has filed his affidavit as well as affidavit of his son Abdul Kalam. The case of the Opposite Parties is that Sabila was admitted in the hospital on 16.09.14. However, the Opposite Party No.1 did not produce any documentary proof such as admission register etc. maintained by the hospital showing the time and date of the admission of the patients in the hospital. This means that the Opposite Parties have withheld the best evidence and therefore, an adverse inference is to taken against the Opposite Parties.
10. The perusal of the record shows that the Complainant has filed copy of Earth Charitable Hospital Krishna Diagnostic Centre which shows that on 06.09.14 the tests namely urine examination, chemical examination and microscopic examination was conducted at Earth Charitable Hospital and the said test were referred by Dr. S.B Singh Shastri i.e. Opposite Party No.1 on the same day on the reference by Dr. S.B Singh Shastri test of Haematology and Serology report conducted by Earth Charitable Hospital. Similarly, on 11.09.14 test at Sahara Diagnostic Centre was conducted on the reference of Opposite Party No.1 Dr. S.B Singh Shastri. Similarly, on 11.09.14 Dr. S.B Singh Shastri i.e. Opposite Party No.1 referred the deceased Sabila for some tests. Some tests were also conducted on the deceased Sabila on 16.09.14 on the reference of Dr. S.B Singh Shastri. The Opposite Parties have not disputed the genuineness of the said investigation reports. This clearly shows that the deceased Sabila was under continuous treatment of Dr. S.B Singh Shastri from 06.09.14 to 16.09.14.
11. The perusal of the said investigation repots shows that the report dated 06.09.14 shows the “Widal Test Positive”. Further the report dated 11.09.14 shows the “T.B Gold-Quantiferon Positive”. It is clear that as per the said reports the deceased Sabila was not well. It has also been discussed above that the deceased Sabila was under constant treatment of Opposite Party No.1 from 06.09.14 to 16.09.14. No evidence has been led on record regarding the treatment given by the Opposite Party No.1 to deceased Sabila regarding her illness.
12. It is the case of the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 is not qualify for Allopathy Treatment. The Complainant has filed on record a copy of document which shows that the Opposite Party No.1 is not an Allopathy doctor. He is Ayurvedic Aacharya. The Opposite Party No.1 has not filed on record any document to shows that he is allopathy qualified doctor for that he can give allopathic treatment. This shows that despite the fact that Opposite Party No.1 was not qualify for giving allopathy treatment and even then he was giving allopathy treatment to the deceased daughter of the Complainant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Poonam Verma vs. Ashwin Patel & Ors. 1996 SCC (4) 332 has held that such a person is a Quack. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced which is as under:-
    •  

 

13. As per post mortem report, the cause of the death of the deceased Sabila was found that deceased Sabila had septicaemic shock as a result of infection of internal abdominal organs. After the post mortem, the report was that “surgically created infection prick mark (plenritic tap) reddish in colour, three in number present over right upper lateral back. The upper most prick mark is 16.5 cm betone shoulder top and 13 cm from midline between 4^th and 5^th rib. Second prick mark was 18 cm belove shoulder top and 13.5 cm from midline between 5^th and 6^th rib. Third prick mark was 18.5 cm belove shoulder top and 13.5 cm from midline between 5^th and 6^th rib. All the prick marks were communicating with the plenral cavity. This also shows that deceased Sabila was given allopathy treatment and her death occurred due to septicaemic shock. Further, the Complainant has also filed Ultra sound report dated 05.09.16 which does not show any serious ailment.
14. This all shows that the daughter of Complainant was under treatment of Opposite Party No.1 from 06.09.14 till her death on 16.09.14. It is also shows that on 05.09.14 she was not having any serious ailment. As per post mortem report, the death of Sabila due to septicaemic shock and result of the upper most prick mark is 16.5 cm betone shoulder top and 13 cm from midline between 4^th and 5^th rib. Second prick mark was 18 cm belove shoulder top and 13.5 cm from midline between 5^th and 6^th rib. Third prick mark was 18.5 cm belove shoulder top and 13.5 cm from midline between 5^th and 6^th rib. All the prick marks were communicating with the plenral cavity. It is also discussed above that the Opposite Party No.1 is not qualified for giving such allopathic treatment. This all shows that negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1. However, no cogent evidence led by the Complainant against Opposite Party No.2.
15. It is therefore held that the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. However, he had not led any evidence as to how he is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- . In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Dr. S.B. Singh Shastri shall pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party No.1 shall also pay the Complainant an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.  
16.  Order announced on 10.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)