BEFORE THE HARYANA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Bays No.
3 - 6, Sector – 4, Panchkula – 134 112 (Haryana)
Phone :
0172 – 2567601, Fax : 0172 –2567502
E-mail
: har-sforum@nic.in,
hr.scdrc@gmail.com
FIRST
APPEAL NO. OF 2016
APPELLANT/ : Dr. Yuvraj, Consultant Orthopaedic Opposite Party No. 1 Surgeon Taneya Hospital Private
Limited,
Sector-21D, Near Community Centre, Opposite Huda Market, N I T, Faridabad – 121
001, (Haryana), Phone : 0129 - 246 3333.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/ : 1. Surender Singh, Aged about
Complainant 47
years, S/o Mr. Parmal Singh,
R/o
House No. 512, Village – Said-ul-Ajaib, New Delhi – 110 030.
Opposite Party No. 2 2. The Medical suprintendent,
Taneya
Hospital Private Limited,
Sector-21D,
Near Community Centre, Opposite Huda Market, N I T, Faridabad – 121 001,
(Haryana), Phone : 0129 - 246 3333.
FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
(NO. 68 OF 1986).
Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2017 passed
by the District Consumer Dispute redressal Forum, Faridabad (Haryana) in the
matter Surender Singh V/s Dr. Yuvraj in the Consumer Complaint No. 340 of 2011,
the appellant / opposite party No. 1 named above most humbly and respectfully
begs to prefer this first appeal on following facts and grounds amongst the
others :
Material facts of the
case :
1. Human life is very valuable; it must be preserved at all costs. So
every member of the medical profession and the public in general have an
obligation to provide aid to victims of any accidents and help them to survive from
possible death. There is no law that forbids this.
2. The point involved in this appeal is whether emergency medical
care provided by the appellant can be subject of judicial scrutiny by Consumer
Fora inspite of the fact that the complainant himself moved 4 more hospitals according
to his own choice, without following any of the medical advice ?
3. Whether in absence of appellant and/ or his counsel on 18.10.2011,
the Fora below was justified in proceeding Ex-partee against the present appellant
?
4.
Complainant Shri Surender Singh, aged
39 years approached the hospital of the Respondent No.2 with c/o trauma, both
hands palmar side while working in a glass shop in Vill. Anchor, Faridabad, at
about 11:30 AM on 02.7.2010 having deep wound on both hands, bleeding
profusely. He was immediately attended to by Dr. Yuvraj (appellant). The
patient was clinically examined to find that there was little damage to tendon,
median Nerve and Cephalic vein in his right wrist, but the cut was so deep on
left wrist that even Ulnar and Median nerve seemed to have damaged very badly.
Accordingly, primary closure was done on right hand after debridement but, as
the damage was heavy on left wrist, the patient was, very frankly told that he
would try his level best to repair Ulnar, Median nerve and Cephalic vein, but
the chances are very remote which may eventually cause numbness, hand grip may
become poor and even cause deformity in the left hand of the complainant. Under
the circumstances, the complainant is free to take a second option also form
some another specialist at the higher centre, but the complainant immediately
gave his written consent requesting the appellant to give the treatment as
deemed fit. Accordingly, the patient was operated upon, necessary medication
was prescribed and he was allowed to go home with and advice to be regular in
follow-up checkup and dressings. During follow-up, his stitches were removed on
12.07.2010 when his wound was yet not healed up completely though the same was
getting healed up appreciably. The appellant prescribed certain medications to
be consumed at home and advised the complainant to report back to the Respondent
No. 2 after two days for the follow up check up with a further mention that
once the wound is healed up completely, the complainant will have to undergo
physiotherapy for about four weeks to get his left hand healthy and
functionable in all respects, but unfortunately, the patient never reported
back to the Respondent No. 2 for further management. Hence, no medical
negligence can be attributed on the part of the Respondents for the sufferings,
if any, the complainant was suffering from. The treatment record submitted by
the complainant indicates that he approached Dr. Mehta urology and surgery
centre on 31.07.2010. Who removed treads, a thread which was left by the
Respondent No.1 because the area was not totally healed, and it was to be
removed on the next visit. The patient did not come. Hence this appeal on
following grounds amongst the others :
GROUNDS :
A.
For that, the Fora below failed to
appreciate that patient/Complainant approached the appellant in the hospital of
the Respondent No.2 on 02.07.2010 at around 11 : 30 AM, the first aid treatment
in question was given to the patient by the appellant, in good faith after
explaining the diagnosis, course of treatment, possible limitations of
treatment, prognosis, benefits, losses with a further mention that though the
damage is little to Ulnar & median nerve as well to Cephalic vein on the
right hand but the damage seems to be heavy on left wrist, however, appellant
tried his level best to repair the same to see that the same starts functioning
at the earliest, but the chances are remote in case of left wrist, which may
eventually cause numbness, poor grip and weakness in the left hand of the
complainant but the complainant immediately gave his written consent requesting
appellant to give the treatment as deemed fit. Accordingly the patient was
operated upon, necessary medications were prescribed and he was allowed to go
home with an advice to be regular in follow-up checkup and dressings. During
follow-up, his stitches were removed on 12.07.2010 when his wound was getting
healed up appreciably. As the wound was yet not healed up completely, the appellant
prescribed certain medication to be consumed at home with a further mention
that once the wound is healed up completely, the complainant will have to
undergo physiotherapy for about four weeks to get his left hand healthy and
functionable, but unfortunately, the patient never reported back to the Respondent
No. 2 for the further management.
B.
For that, the Fora below ought to have
appreciated that the patient should
have come to the surgeon for the follow-up and to remove the stitch which was
left because in that area the wound had not healed completely, but the patient
visited the Dr. Mehta Urology Centre without the consultation of the operating
doctor. This is sole negligence of the patient. Moreover, only the thread was removed, and no
surgery was done. The patent did not follow the expert opinion of Asian
Hospital and also did not consult Dr. Yuvraj, who was the consultant orthopedic
surgeon at Asian Hospital. This is sole negligence of the patient.
C.
For that, the For a below committed
grave error and irregularity in not considering that the diagnosis of disease
and further its treatment and the complications subsequent to always a matter
of fact and not of speculation; and if the benefits of treatment have to go to
the patient, it’s untoward effects and unwarranted results will also go to the
complainant/patient, and these untoward results cannot be garbed as negligence,
where it is a fact that the Respondents being treating doctors, have tried
their level best and used their highest degree of skill, care, knowledge,
infrastructures, efforts and precautions. It is further stated that the
treating doctors cannot avoid any inherent complication (in almost 100% cases)
which are basic ingredients either of disease pathology itself or treatment
procedure, about which the Complainant was well informed as was well in
knowledge also. Only precautionary steps can be taken by the respondents as any
other prudent qualified doctor/consultant who is engaged in the treatment of
the patient would do. Until unless the Complainant is able to prove that “the
treating doctor has deviated from the normal/ prescribed line of treatments
applicable to the particular case/disease conditions to label that as negligence”,
no such complaint should be tried by this Hon’ble Forum.
D.
For that, the For a below committed
material irregularity and illegality in not considering that in this case the
complainant was properly examined, investigated, diagnosed and treated by the appellant
in the hospital of Respondent no.2 as per prescribed norms of Medical Ethics,
which are mentioned in the text books and journals of the subject concerned
without deviating from the standard prescribed line of treatment, hence the
complaint was liable to be dismissed out rightly.
E.
For that, the For a below ought to have
considered that the Complainant approached the appellant in the hospital of the
Respondent No.2 in Emergency on 02.07.2010, the treatment in question was given
to the Complainant by the appellant in good faith after explaining the
diagnosis, limitations of treatment, benefits, losses and well known
complications, etc. The dispute raised by the Complainant in the present
complainant was manifestly outside the purview of the said act since the same
was intentionally prejudiced, malafide and false against the Respondents, hence
the complainant was liable to be dismissed.
F.
For that, the Fora below failed to have
appreciated that no surgery was performed by Dr. Mehta. However, the complainant
should have approached the Respondents thereafter at least, but the complainant
surprisingly preferred to approach ASIAN Hospital on 18.08.2010 which is just
nearer to Taneya Hospital. It is noted that the Doctor of ASIAN Hospital also
advised him to undergo physiotherapy but the complainant ignored the humble
advice of those Doctors also despite hand grip weakness moderately at that
point of time. As per treatment record, the complainant then approached AIIMS
on 30.05.2011 i.e., after eleven months of the treatment given by the
Respondents where nerve exploration with neuroma excision was done but did not
heal up and resulted neuroma formation.
G.
For that, the above facts make it
crystal clear as to how negligent remained the patient/ complainant towards his
own treatment despite having been explained in length that cut was so deep on
left wrist that it may eventually cause numbness and deformity in left hand, if
the nerves do not get repaired timely. The complainant neither took
physiotherapy nor approached the Respondents again, despite having been
explained the prognosis by Doctors of ASIAN Hospital also as advised by the
Respondent earlier on 12.07.2010 during his last visit to the hospital of the
Respondent no.2. The complainant remained so careless towards his treatment of
left wrist for about 10 months that he did not consult any Doctor for his
sufferings, if any, on left wrist though in between he did approach FORTIS
HOSPITAL and METRO HEART INSTITUTE for some other problems. The complainant then,
after eleven months of the treatment even could not be much benefited. The
patient was doctor shopping.
H.
For that, In Rafiq and Anr.
v. Munshilal and Anr. AIR 1981 SC 140 and Smt. Lachi and Ors. v. Director of
Land Records and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 41 while dealing with a similar
issue held that a litigant cannot suffer for the fault of his counsel. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the former case observed as under:
"What is the fault
of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him, would
suffer because of the default of his advocate.... The problem that agitates us
is whether it is proper that a party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate
omission, or misdemeanour of his agent.... We cannot be a party to an innocent
party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted."
I.
For that, Similar view has been reiterated in Goswami Krishna
Murarilal Sharma v. Dhan Prakash and Ors. (1981) 4 SCC 474, where the counsel
had withdrawn his Vakalatnama without notice to his client. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court following its earlier judgment in Rafiq (supra), held that the Court
should not have proceeded to dismiss the appeal straight away on the ground
that the appellant was not present in person when his counsel had withdrawn the
Vakalatnama. At least a notice ought to have been given to such a litigant to
make an alternative arrangement or appear in person.
J.
For that, Similar view has been reiterated in Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and
Ors. v. Ramchandra Issardas Sadarangani and Anr., AIR 1993 SC 1182 ;
and Malkiat Singh and
Anr. v. Joginder Singh and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 258, observing that in
case a litigant is neither negligent nor careless in prosecuting his case but
his lawyer pleads no instruction, the Court should issue notice to him to make
an alternative arrangement. Such a course is required in the interest of
justice and the Court may proceed from the stage the earlier counsel pleaded no
instruction. If the litigant is not at fault, he should not suffer for such a
conduct of his counsel.
K.
For that, In Sushila Narahari and Ors. v. Nand Kumari, (1996) 5
SCC 529, the case was dismissed in default and an application for restoration
was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 40 days in filing the
application for restoration. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the delay due to
advocate's dereliction in duty withdrawing his Vakalatnama without notice to
his client warranted condonation.
L.
For that, In Bani Singh and
Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors., 1996 CriLJ s3491 a matter was
referred to the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as there had been
conflict of opinion between two Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the
issue as what should be the course of action in case a lawyer does not appear
in the High Court at the stage of hearing of a criminal appeal. The Court held
that if the accused is in Jail and cannot, on his own, come to Court, it
will be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the
appearance of the accused/appellant if his lawyer is not present. If the lawyer
is absent and the Court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at State
expenses to assist it, there is nothing in the law to preclude it from doing
so. While interpreting the provisions of Sections 385 and 386 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and considering its earlier judgments in Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR
1987 SC 1500 and Shyam Deo Pandey
v. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1506, the Court held that the
accused/appellant may be given a chance of appearance if his lawyer is not
present and in certain circumstances, a lawyer may be appointed at State
expenses to assist the Court. However, the case may also be decided on merit in
absence of the appellant as the higher Court can remedy the situation if there
has been a failure of justice. The Court observed as under:
"The appellant and
his lawyer can remain absent with impunity, not once, again and again, the
Court issues a warrant for the appellant's presence. A complaint to the Bar
Council against the lawyer for nonappearance cannot result in the progress of
the appeal. If another lawyer is appointed at State cost, he too, would need
the presence of the appellant for instructions and that would place the Court
in the same situation. Such a procedure can, therefore, prove cumbersome and
can promote indiscipline. Even if a case is decided on merits in the absence of
appellant, the higher Court can remedy the situation if there has been a
failure of justice."
M.
For that, In Salil Dutta v.
T.M. & Mc (P) Ltd., [1993] 1 SCR 794, the Apex Court, after
considering its earlier judgment in Rafiq (supra) observed that the said case
was decided on the facts involved therein and, thus, it did not lay down any
absolute proposition. The Court observed as under:
"It is true that in
certain situations, the Court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a
dismissal order or an ex parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and/or
misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent
litigant but there is no such absolute rule that a party can disown its
advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be
recognised. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system
extremely difficult."
PRAYER
It
is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that Judgment and Order dated
14.07.2017 passed by the District Consumer Dispute redressal Forum, Faridabad
(Haryana) in the matter Surender Singh V/s Dr. Yuvraj in the Consumer Complaint
No. 340 of 2011, may kindly be set aside and the matter may kindly be remanded back
before the Fora below under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 22 of the
code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No. 5 of 1908) for deciding the matter in accordance
with Law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein.
PLACE
: FARIDABAD
DATED
: 01.08.2017 ADVOCATE
FOR APPELLANT
Your blog is wonderful I like reading your articles Always. Stay up with the great work! You realize, lots of persons are looking around this info, you could aid them greatly work.
ReplyDeleteBest Orthopaedic Surgeon in Shastri Nagar
Orthopaedic Surgeon in Shastri Nagar
Knee Replacement in Shastri Nagar
Find the Best ACL Surgeon in Delhi at drgovindjoshi.in. Connect with experienced and professional doctors from across India who specialize in advanced ACL Surgeon.
ReplyDelete