Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member, Mr. DR. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Dr. Harsh Sharma —Petitioner
Versus
Shakuntla and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3805 of 2011
(Against the Order dated 22/07/2011 in Appeal No. 347/2007 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 14.2.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sagar, Advocate with Petitioner in person
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. B. S. Sharma, Amicus Curiae with in person
For the Respondent No.2: NEMO
IMPORTANT POINT
Number of investigations conducted at government hospital are relevant to pre-operative test for cholecystectomy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Medical services—Medical negligence—Gynaecology—Complaint allowed by State Commission—Surgery—Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of doctor—Patient was diagnosed as a Cholelithiasis (gall stones)—Number of investigations conducted at government hospital are relevant to pre-operative test for cholecystectomy—Complainant’s version that there were no gall stones is wrong—It was a case of acute Cholelithiasis and OP treated patient conservatively and on the basis of ultrasound report, he diagnosed it as a case of Cholecystitis with Cholelithiasis (stone) and advised Cholecystectomy—Complainant filed this complaint without knowledge of medicine—It was his ignorance to initiate such unnecessary complaint to harass doctor wherein doctor unfortunately suffered—Orders of Fora below set aside and complaint dismissed. (Paras 10 and 11)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—1. There is a delay of 23 days in filing the revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 23 days is condoned.
2. The instant revision petition is filed against the order dated 22.7.2011 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred as ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 347 of 2007, by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the opposite party-Dr. Harsh Sharma, Vishal Hospital.
3. The brief facts relevant to dispose of this revision petition are that the complainant, Smt. Shakuntla, (herein after referred as ‘patient’), who was suffering from abdominal pain, consulted Dr. Harsh Sharma, OP, at Vishal Hospital on 7.11.2003. In order to confirm diagnosis, the doctor/OP has suggested ultrasound and some laboratory tests. On the basis of reports, OP told that due to swelling in her gall bladder, she needs operation. The patient got admitted in the hospital for 8 days and spent Rs. 12,000/- towards hospitalization and medicines. When the patient became stable, there was no pain, therefore, OP decided for operation and demanded additional Rs. 10,000/- but on 13.2.2004, complainant visited Civil Hospital, Jagadhri wherein the doctors on examination stated that there is no stone in the gall bladder. For another opinion, the complainant visited Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi on 26.2.2004 wherein no stone was found in the gall bladder of the complainant. After that, the complainant got examined herself from Mehta X-ray and Ultrasound Centre. There also, no stone was found in the gall bladder. Therefore, it was alleged by the complainant that in order to make money, the OP falsely represented the complainant that there is stone in the gall bladder. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of OP/doctor, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
4. The District Forum after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the OP/doctor as under:—
“…to return the amount of Rs.12,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realization and pay Rs.50,000/- compensation towards mental agony and financial loss due to the negligent and deficiency in service on his part and pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP/doctor preferred first appeal before Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), Panchkula. That appeal was also dismissed being devoid of merits. Hence, this revision petition.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, the parties are also present in person. Mr. Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the patient was hospitalized only for the acute abdominal pain. The ultrasound clearly revealed that there was evidence of multiple small stones and the gall bladder was thickened. The diagnosis made was Acute Cholecystitis with Cholelithiasis. The patient was discharged on 15.11.2003 with an advice of cholecystectomy after 1½ month. Therefore, treatment was properly given by OP 1. Learned counsel submitted that OP had charged only Rs.1700/- towards the hospitalization charges whereas other expenses for medicines were done by the patient/complainant.
7. The rival contentions by Mr. B. S. Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae for the complainant are that the OP/doctor falsely stated that there were stones in the gall bladder and to make unlawful gain, he advised gall bladder removal surgery. There were no stones found in any report done in different centres.
8. We have perused medical record and given thoughtful consideration. As per USG report done on 8.11.2003 and 9.11.2003 the findings revealed cholecystitis with multiple gall stones. As per discharge card the diagnosis was acute cholecystitis with cholelithiasis. The patient was advised for cholecystectomy an
