IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 05.04.2022 Date of hearing: 26.09.2025 Date of Decision: 28.01.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO-47/2022 IN THE MATTER OF SHRI DEVENDER SINGH S/O LATE SHRI LABH SINGH R/O WZ-591, FIRST FLOOR, GALI NO-2 NEW DELHI-110058 (Through: Mrs. Navruti Ojha, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. KHANNA HOSPITAL, C-2/396, JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI-110058.

2. DR. VIVEK KHANNA, C-2/396, JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI-110058 (Through: Mr. Kapil Kher, Advocate)

3. UNITED IINDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

42-C ,III FLOOR, MOOLCHAND COMMERCIAL COMPLEX NEW DELHI – 110001.

(Through: Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate)

…Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Rishab Kumar, Counsel for the appellant (Enrl. No.

D/2517/15, Mobile: 9999969413)

Mr. Kapil Kher, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 2 appeared through VC None for the Respondent No. 3 PER :HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. Facts germane for the present complaint are that complainant is a senior citizen and was suffering from pain and swelling in the lower portion of his left leg in November 2014 for which on 17th November, 2014, he got himself admitted in OP1 hospital under the treatment of OP2 who diagnosed the ailment as cellulitis in left foot and treatment for the same was started on the complainant by OP2 after pathological and other clinical tests wherein his sugar level was found normal. As per the estimated cost of treatment given by OP1 & OP2 as Rs. 27,000/- for four days admission, the complainant who was having a Mediclaim insurance policy w.e.f. 01.09.2014 to 30.08.2015 got sanction of Rs. 15,000/- for the said” treatment. However, the grievance of the complainant is that OP1 & OP2 never considered the his x-ray report of the affected leg which clearly showed fracture in the said leg which had caused pain and swelling but OPs instead chose to give wrong treatment of wrongly diagnosed cellulitis. Moreover, OPs charged an excessive sum of Rs. 63,000/- towards cost of treatment and even extended the admission of the complainant in OP1 by two more days as against earlier estimate of cost of treatment and period of admission and room rent. It is alleged in the complaint that OPs intentionally gave wrong treatment just to derive monetary gain and complainant further alleged that in the bill for injection MAX PT IV which was given twice a day charges were raised for the said injection for thrice a day against actual administration of this said injection twice a day. It is alleged by the complainant that after discharge from the OP Hospital on 21.11.2014, the complainant consulted Doctors of one J.K. Hospital on 05.01.2015. According to the complainant, on seeing the x-ray taken at the time of treatment, the doctors of the said J.K. Hospital opined that the bone of the foot was clearly in a broken condition and the treatment given was on the wrong line which was not required at all. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaints against OP1 & OP2 with the Directorate of Health Services, Delhi, Delhi Medical Council and Health Ministry GNCTD in April 2015 on which complaints, show cause notices/reminders were issued to the OP1 & OP2 by all these authorities but OP1 & OP2 failed to put up the defence except giving a vague reply before the Directorate of Health but did not address the grievance of the complainant. The complainant has stated that he has been rendered permanently handicapped for life due to negligence and wrong treatment given by OP1 & OP2 and when he contacted Sir Ganga Ram Hospital (SGRH) as also B.L.K. Super Specialty Hospital in Delhi, he was quoted a cost of Rs. three to four lakhs for corrective surgery but was also cautioned that there were very less chances of improvement or positive outcome of surgery. The complainant has submitted that he cannot afford to incur to s