Haryana

StateCommission

A/1534/2017

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUMAN LATA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL DHAMIJA

13 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                      First Appeal No.1534 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution: 13.12.2017

                                                          Date of order:13.03.2023

 

United India Insurance Company, Branch Office, 4, 16M, Gole Market, Mahanagar, Lucknow (U.P.), through its Authorized Signatory, United India Insurance Company, Limited, Regional office SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Suman Lata W/o Kartar Singh, R/o H.No.3118, Sector 15, Sonepat.

2.      Saroha Nursing Home, 42P, Sector 15, Opp. Amrit Cinema, Sonepat, through its Director/Proprietor.

3.      Dr. Poonam Saroha, C/o Saroha Nursing Home, 42 P, Sector 15, Opp. Amrit Cinema, Sonepat.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Ketan Antil, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Deepak Jaglan, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.1534 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 11.10.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat(In short  Now“District Commission”) in complaint case No.190 of 2016, which was allowed.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that on 31.05.2015 complainant was admitted with opposite party (OP) No.1 due to severe post menopausalbleeding  and was treated by OP No.2-doctor. On 01.06.2015, surgery was conducted through laser technique.
She remained admitted with OP No.1 till 04.06.2015 and after surgery, she developed the problem of leakage of urine  fromher bladder. The treating doctor referred the patient to Jeevandeep Diagnostic Centre for Cystogram test and the report disclosed that bladder of the complainant has been ruptured/punctured. OP No.2  treating doctor informed her that during operation for removal of uterus by laser beam, the bladder of the complainant was accidentally ruptured/punctured from two places. OP No.2 assured that the bladder will be healed within a month.However after some time, infection developed dueto urine pipe.  On 13.07.2015, the patient explained herproblem  to OP No.2 that she has consulted the problem with Apollo Hospital, Fortis Hospital and Mool
Chand Hospital.  The complainant  remained under treatment with Mool Chand Hospital for almost three  months and during that period, the complainant has to use diapers.  On the assurance of OP No.2, the complainant got herself operated  upon again at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and spent Rs.Five lacs on her surgery.    The complainant requested the Ops to compensate her but OP No.2 did not pay any heed.  Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and hence the complaint.

4.      Notice issued to the Ops.  OP Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed   separate written statements.  Op Nos.1 and 2 alleged that  on 18.05.2015, the complainant approached it for complaint of post menopausal bleeding and having multiple fibroids.   On 31.05.2015 USG was conducted and in the report of USG it was found that uterus of the patient was anteverted measuring 60x41x32 mm size. Hpoechoic masses upto 19 mm size seen.  Endometrium and cervix was  normal. No mass seen. No ovarian/aaenaxal mass seen. The hysterectory was performed under spinal anesthesia by OP No.2 alongwith a team of doctors including Anesthetiest.   The surgery was performed by the doctors and after three hours of removal of catheter she complainedof passing urine. The report of Cystogram dated 03.06.2015 showed “possibility of small intra peritoneal leak with “Bladder rupture”.Infact the reason for this was that complainant did not follow the advice of the treating doctors. Moreover complainant approached  unqualified doctor at Haridwar and due to act and omission of said doctor, she may have suffered subsequent complications of fistula.  The complication suffered by complainant was not due to negligence of treating doctor but due to the treatment taken from unqualified doctor at Haridwar. The treating doctor of MoolChand  Kidney Hospital and Urology Institute advised the complainant for VVF (Low) repair after three months but complainant has not produced any document of the subsequent treatment. Thus there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the OP Nos.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      OP No.3 in its written statement alleged that as  per the indemnity policy, the  OP No.3 was only liable in case of any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2 The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint. The OP No.2 was  a qualified and experienced Gyancologist. The complainant has concealed the material facts from the District Commission.Thus there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P and requested to dismiss the complaint.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Sonepathas allowed the complaint vide order dated 11.10.2017, which is as under:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.Two lakh seventy thousand) for rendering deficiency and negligent services to the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand) for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant. However, since the respondent No.1 and 2 are insured with the respondent No.3, the above said amount of compensation shall be paid by the respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 to the complainant.  The respondent No.3 is also directed to make the  payment of the above said amount to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest @ 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.”

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. No.3-appellant has preferred this appeal.

8.      This argumentswere advanced by Sh.Satpal Dhamija, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.KetanAntil, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Deepak Jaglan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. With their kind assistance entire record of the appealas well as the original record of District Commission including the evidence led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

9.      It is not disputed that the complainant got herself admitted with OP No.1-hospital post severe post menopausal bleeding.  It is also admitted that the OP No.2 conducted her surgery through laser method.  It is also admitted  that the complainant  remained hospitalized with OP No.1 till 04.06.2015.  It is also admitted that after the surgery, she developed the problem of leakage of urine from  herbladder and having no sense or feeling for urge to pass urine.  Putting it differently she failed to exercise any control over passing of urine. It is also true that cystogram test was conducted, which revealed the bladder of the complainant was ruptured/punctured.   The plea of the opposite parties that the  treating doctor was not negligent in performing the surgery rather it was the complainant did not follow the advice of the treating doctor, is not relevant in this case because after operation, when the complainant  was referred to Jeevandeep Diagnostic Centre for cystogram test, even at that moment also she was having ruptured bladder as was reported in this regard in the said examination itself by that time complainant had not got herself treated from some unauthorized quacks at Haridwar. This shows that the problem leading to rupturing of urinary bladder took took place during the procedure carried out by Ops No.1 and 2 doctors only. Since, it is clear that bladder was ruptured due to negligence on the part of the OP No.2 as the laser method was not properly used by the treating doctor. The appellant has already insured OP No.1 and 2 so OP No.3 is liable to pay the awarded amount to the complainant. The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant.  The learned District Forum has committed no illegality while passing the order dated 11.10.2017.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondentNo.1 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

12.              A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.              File be consigned to record room.

 

 

13th March, 2023                Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)