Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/886/2017

Santosh Devi W/O Ram Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kailash Healh Care Limited Kailash Hospital And research Center Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Bharat yadav

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 886/2017

 

Smt.Santosh Devi w/o Ram kumar r/o village Manchal Tehsil Behror Distt. Alwar

Vs.

Kailash Health Care Ltd. Kailash Hospital & Research Centre, A 101, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi through Director & ors.

 

Date of Order 10.4.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Bharat Yadav counsel for the appellant

Mr. Ajay Goyal counsel for the respondents.

 

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

 

 

2

 

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Alwar dated 28.6.2017 whereby the claim is dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that she went to the hospital on 8.11.2010 with the complaint of abdomen pain, vomiting, motion and headache. She was admitted in ICU. Ultrasound examination was done and on 10.11.2010 she was discharged. Again on the same complaint she went on 15.11.2010 and thereafter she was examined in SMS Hospital and there on 24.11.2010 her appendix was removed for which she has to incur Rs. 40,000/- and contention of the appellant is that the hospital could not diagnosis that she is suffering from appendix and further more on the report of other lady Sushma she was treated.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that at the time when the complainant was treated in their hospital she was not having any diagnosis of appendix. Ultrasound was done and accordingly treatment was given. It may be possible that at the time of discharge, report of Sushma was delivered to her mistakenly.

3

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that with specific complaint the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 8.11.2010 and discharged on 10.11.2010. Her sonography of whole abdomen was recommended through requisition form dated 8.11.2010. Sonography report is also placed on record which is referred by Dr. Rachit Gupta who the doctor incharge of the complainant appellant which is evident from discharge summary. Admission and treatment record has also been placed on record where investigation suggested is ultrasound of whole abdomen and treatment chart dated 8.11.2010 of the hospital contains the note that sonography of whole abdomen done and collected meaning thereby that after seeing the sonography report she was treated. Hence, it cannot be said that on the sonography of other patient she was treated because on 8.11.2010 treatment chart it has been clearly mentioned that sonography is done and collected whereas the sonography report of Sushma which has been submitted by the appellant complainant is of 9.11.2010

 

4

 

and that too referred by Dr.Lata Sharma and further more it may be noted that sonography of Sushma is for lower abdomen whereas the appellant complainant was done sonography for whole abdomen. Hence, the contention of the appellant is totally baseless that on the sonography report of other patient she was treated. It may be possible that sonography report of the other patient was delivered to the appellant alongwith the treatment record which is only a simple mistake.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that she has to undergone surgery for appendix in SMS Hospital on 24.11.2010 and when the appendix was distended on 24.11.2010 it should have been also revealed in the sonography report of 8.11.2010 but the contention of the respondent is that the appendix are of two type one is acute and other is chronic and literature downloaded from the Net has also been submitted which contains that acute appendix could be developed in hours or within days whereas symptoms of chronic appendix are mild. Sometimes it disappears and sometimes it is visible. Hence, in view of the above study it is not necessary that appendix which was operated and found

 

5

 

extended on 24.11.2010 be necessarily also present on 8.11.2010.

 

In view of above, the Forum below has rightly dismissed the claim. There is no merit in this appeal and liable to be dismissed.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm