Haryana

StateCommission

A/1226/2017

ROOMA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARANG CLINIC - Opp.Party(s)

BALKAR SINGH

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No. 1226 of 2017

Date of Institution: 13.10.2017

                                                          Date of Decision: 28.01.2019

 

Smt. Rooma Devi w/o Sh. Shri Mohan Yadav, since deceased now represented through her legal heirs:-

i)        Saurabh (minor son)

ii)       Pooja Rani (minor daughter)

iii)      Sachin (minor son)

iv)      Rahul (minor son)

All being minors represented through their father and natural guardian Shri Mohan Singh Yadav s/o Sh. Sh. Hansa Yadav, R/o H.No.307, Ward No.29/15, Anand colony, Garhi Road, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana).

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

 

1. Narang Clinic, Garhi road Old Hamida, Yamuna Nagar.
2. Dr.Gulshan narang, Garhi road, Old Hamida, Yamuna Nagar.
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. presently situated at 60 Janpath, New Delhi-110001.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.
 

 

Present:-    Mr.Mohan Yadav representative of appellants.

                   Mr.Subhash Chand,  Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

                   Mr.Geeta Chaudhary, Advocate counsel for respondent No.3.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present appeal is that  on 17.01.2013 Roma Devi one of the complainant was suffering from loose motion and vomiting and she was taken to O.P.No.1 for treatment.  She was got admitted with the O.P.-1-clinic, where O.P.No.2 gave some injections. She admitted with the O.P.No.1 upto 23.01.2013, but, condition of Roma Devi (deceased) was critical.   O.P.No.2 took her to the hospital of Dr.Ish Chadha in Yamuna Nagar, who advised to take the patient to PGI.  She was admitted in PGI Chandigarh.  During her treatment, treating doctor’s of PGI noticed that condition of the Roma Devi was bad due to wrong prescription and wrong medicines. Two feet and one hand of the complainant-Roma Devi deceased was completely useless and were amputated from the body of the deceased.  The deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from selling the tea and snacks. Thus there was deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the O.ps.

2.      Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed the separate written statement controverting their averments.  O.P.Nos.1 and 2  alleged that the complainant was brought on 17.01.2013 for treatment.  She was OPD patient  and never admitted in the O.P clinic and after conducted the tests and the finding of the lab report the OP referred the patient to higher centre.  O.P. Nos.1 and 2 denied that  they took the patient to hospital of Dr.R.K.Gupta and Dr.Ish Chadha.  They only provided medicine for diarrhea. Thus there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2.  Preliminary objections about the maintainability of complaint,  locus standi, accuring cause of action, abuse the process of law, bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      O.P.No.3 filed separate reply and denied that doctors was ever negligent in any manner while treating the patient at any stage. The complaint was false and frivolousone and has been filed with ulterior motives to defame and grab the money from the O.ps.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 25.09.2017.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred the appeal.

6.      This argument have been advanced by Sh. Mr.Mohan Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Subhash Chand,  the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mrs. Geeta Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the  respondent No.3. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      After considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants with that of the respondents, it is true that initially, the deceased Roma Devi obtained treatment from O.P.No.2.  However, lateron she was taken to two other hospitals and finally she was taken to PGIMS Chandigarh, where her two hands and one leg was amputated and finally she was expired.  Now the question arises when there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove that it was a case of medical negligence on the part of the O.P.No.2, in that eventuality, the learned District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint. 

8.      Even otherwise also in the cases of medical negligence, the sufficient and corroborative piece of evidence has to be led chronologically to prove the medical negligence.  In the case in hand and for the sake of repetition, the treating doctor i.e. O.P.No.2 has given a first aid to Roma Devi deceased only once and no other medicine was prescribed to the complainant and then she was taken to two other hospitals including PGIMS Chandigarh, where she has expired.  When, there is no evidence that death of the deceased Roma Devi was took place due to the medical negligence of the O.P.No.2, in that eventuality, the present appeal would also be not legally maintainable. Resultantly, while upholding the impugned order of the learned District Forum, the appeal stands dismissed.

 

January 28th, 2019                        Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                 Judicial Member                                                                               Addl.Bench                  

S.K.