First Appeal No. 1153 of 2015. Case: Public Hospital, VPO Panj Garaian and Ors. Vs Nirbho Singh and Ors.. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 1153 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Ritesh Pandey, Advocate and For Respondents: B.B.S. Randhawa, Advocate
JudgesGurcharan Singh Saran, (Presiding Member (J)) and Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(c), 24A
Judgement DateJanuary 04, 2017
CourtPunjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Gurcharan Singh Saran, (Presiding Member (J))

  1. The appellants/Op Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred as Ops) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 19.8.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 321 dated 5.9.2014 vide which the complaint filed by complainant was allowed and Op Nos. 2 & 3 were ordered to pay Rs. 3 lacs each to the complainant as compensation for causing physical and mental pain and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost or further ordered to comply within a period of 30 days, otherwise, it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment.

  2. Complaint was filed by complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against Ops on the averments that in the month of November, 2010, he approached Op No. 2 due to non-functioning of his right kidney. He checked and advised the complainant that Op No. 3 is Surgical Specialist. He was got admitted in Op No. 1. Nephrectomy was advised and was done by Op No. 3 i.e. Dr. Navin Dhir on 12.11.2010 and right kidney was removed and it was assured that he will not suffer any problem in future and was discharged on 30.11.2010. Op Nos. 2 & 3 charged Rs. 40,500/- and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was spent on medicines. After about 8-9 months, the complainant suffered problem of storing of water in his abdomen. When he brought this problem to the notice of Op No. 3, he advised to approach Op No. 3 in Amritsar, where he was running its own hospital. Complainant got removed the stored water from Op No. 3 four times and spent Rs. 10,000/- as fee and transportation charges every time. He further remained admitted with Op No. 1 from 28.2.2011 to 2.3.2011. He was issued wrong certificate that the complainant was suffering from P.I.V.D. and was advised regular rest and treatment for a month and after re-examination, he was declared fit on 3.4.2011. However, when the problem reoccurred and was not cured for a long time, they advised to go for other minor operation through Microscope as a vein is to be blocked and it was done by Op No. 3 at Naveen Hospital and spent more than Rs. 1 lac. Even Naval of the complainant was removed and a new problem of urine blockage started. The problem was not being cured by Op No. 3. Then he got done his scan of abdomen on 21.11.2013 from Dhillon MRI Scan Centre, Amritsar and it was revealed that right kidney of the complainant was not properly removed by Op No. 3. When complainant approached Op No. 3, Op No. 3 refused to admit the complainant then complainant approached Kidney Hospital, Jalandhar and scanning of the complainant was done by S.G.L. Super Speciality Hospital, Jalandhar on 3.12.2013 and it showed that right kidney was there but they also refused to admit the complainant as a case had been turned to be very critical and they advised to get the surgery from PGI, Chandigarh. He showed these reports to Op No. 3, who admitted his fault but refused to admit the complainant. On 14.12.2013, scan was again done by Randhawa Ultrasound Centre, Amritsar and reported the problem in the right kidney. Then complainant was admitted in Asia Surgical Centre & Hospital, Amritsar, who referred for scanning which was done by Nijjar Scan & Diagnostic Centre, Amritsar, which showed right kidney of the complainant. Operation of the complainant was done on 27.3.2014 at Asia Surgical Centre & Hospital and discharged on 5.4.2014 and he spent Rs. 60,000/- on this operation and medicines. It had happened due to negligence on the part of Op Nos. 2 & 3. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking directions against Ops to pay Rs. 15 lacs for the negligence, due to which the complainant suffered a lot.

  3. The complaint was contested by Ops. Op Nos. 1 to 3 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that he complaint was not maintainable as it did not qualify the ingredients to be a valid complaint as required under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act as there was no deficiency in service on the part of Op; complainant concealed true and material facts from the Hon'ble Forum; complainant prior to surgery had taken treatment from various Surgeons at Jalandhar with multiple interventions like Ureteric Stunting treatment failures. He also failed to disclose that after his nephrectomy, the Histopathological examination dated 16.11.2010 was conducted and it was clearly mentioned in the report that 10.5 x 10 x 3.5 cm kidney was removed, which was on microscopy was positive for obstructive hydronephrotic changes with chronic...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT