O R D E R

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member.

This order will govern disposal of both the above mentioned two appeals No.2065/2014 (filed by complainant-Smt. Vimla Devi) and 2112/2014 (filed by opposite party No.2-Dr. B.R. Shrivastava). However, for the sake of convenience, facts are taken from appeal No. 2065/2014, unless otherwise stated.

2. This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated 24.9.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 55/2014, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint and has directed the opposite parties No.1 and 3 to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- , jointly or severally to the complainant, with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite party No.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- with costs of Rs.500/-. Compliance of the order is directed to be done within 30 days from the date of order, failing which interest @ 8% per annum is directed to be paid, after 30 days of the date of order, till payment.

3. Briefly put facts of the case are that for stones in gall bladder, the complainant was operated upon by Dr. L.N. Arora on 16.11.2013 and she was discharged on 17.11.2013. On noticing some abnormality in the gall bladder, Dr. Arora advised to send a piece of gall bladder for examination and accordingly, the complainant got the gall bladder piece examined by opposite party No.1, who gave a report indicating cancer. When the report was shown to Dr. Arora, he advised the complainant to contact opposite party No.2, who is a Cancer Specialist. Accordingly, on 24.11.2013, the complainant visited opposite party No.2/doctor, who informed her that cancer has spread in the muscles of gall bladder and he advised for a major surgery and prescribed necessary medicines. The complainant, thereafter went to Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai for better treatment on 25.11.2013, where Dr. Sunil Agrawal advised re-examination of gall bladder piece with some other investigations. There no cancer was found. It is submitted that due to wrong report given by the opposite parties, the complainant was harassed mentally and financially. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

4. The opposite party No.1/doctor resisted the complaint and in his reply before the District Commisson submitted that he is insured with the United India Insurance Company, under which risk of Rs.2 lakhs is covered for a period from 31.5.2013 to 30.5.2014. It is further submitted that intimation regarding the claim was given to the Insurance Company on 14.2.2014, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from him. It is further submitted that when the complainant came for examination of the gall bladder, the sample was taken for investigations and report dated 16.11.2013 indicated cancer. The report of Tata Memorial Hospital dated 25.11.2013 is second opinion, in which also, cancer has been mentioned after examining the sample. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.1/doctor and prayer for dismissal of complaint against him was made.

5. The opposite party No.2/doctor resisted the complaint and in his reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant visited him on 24.11.2023 for consultation. However, he denied that he had informed the complainant that cancer had spread internally. It is submitted that based on pathology report brought by the complainant, medicines were prescribed for 5 days, in which only antibiotics and vitamin tablets were there. Advice for surgery was also given but the complainant did not turn up thereafter. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency in service on part on his part in treating the complainant and p