SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 14756

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Resident Director PIMS and another – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sheetal – Respondent
SC/3/A/215/2020



STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 13.07.2020 Reserved on : 01.04.2024 Date of Decision : 23.04.2024

1. Resident Director, PIMS Medical and Education Charitable Society (Regd.), having its Administrative Office at Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Garha Road, Jalandhar.

2. The Director Principal, PIMS Medical and Education Charitable Society (Regd.), having its Administrative Office at Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Garha Road, Jalandhar.

….Appellants/Opposite Parties No.3&4 Versus

1. Mrs. Sheetal w/o Sh. Vipan Kumar r/o House No. 51, Bohar Wala Mohalla, Near Singh Sabha Gurudwara, Maqsudan, Jalandhar, Punjab …Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Garha Road, Jalandhar through its Resident Director/Authorized Signatory .…Proforma Respondent No.2/OP No.1 First Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar. Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh.Vineet Bali, Advocate for Sh. I.S. Bhatia, Advocate For the respondent No.1 : Sh. I.P. Singh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

For respondent No.2 : None SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

Appellants/Opposite Parties No.3&4 i.e. PIMS, Jalandhar have filed the present appeal through its Resident Director & Director Principal to challenge the impugned order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Sheetal has been partly accepted and OPs No.1, 3 & 4 were directed to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-

to the Complainant.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant, who was a teacher faced problem in her right side foot drop along with numbness and pain. For the said problem, on 11.06.2016 she visited Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Jalandhar where Dr. Vishal Moudgil-OPNo.2 examined her. After examination, he told to the Complainant that there was shortening of her right leg by saying “Kulha Puuri Tarah Se Savasth Nahi Hai”. Thereafter, he advised her to go for surgery of Total Hip Replacement (THR). Doctor had also informed her that if THR was not conducted timely, in future her spinal cord would be badly damaged leading to loss of movement. He also informed her that some Medical Prosthesis Company had started camp from 11.06.2016 and in case she got herself registered in that Camp for surgery, the total cost of the surgery would be reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. He also informed that the Complainant would save Rs.30,000/- for the said surgery. Said fact was discussed by the Complainant with her family on telephone and thereafter she gave her consent for surgery. On 11.06.2016, the Complainant was admitted with the OPs. Her pre-operative tests like blood test, sugar test, ECG were carried out. On 13.06.2016, before starting the surgery, she was administered with spinal/epidural anesthesia. After that she felt numbness in her lower half portion below waist but she was in full senses. During surgery, in the operation theatre, music was being played and Doctors and other OT staff were indulging in indecent conversation. During operation, she heard that OP No.2-Doctor had demanded from OT attendant femoral head of a particular size, who replied that femoral head of the same size was not yet available and some Staff Member had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top