LAWS(NCD)-2018-2-53

J.P. HOSPITAL Vs. JATINDER PAL SINGH

Decided On February 05, 2018
J.P. Hospital Appellant
V/S
JATINDER PAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by J.P. Hospital and one of its Surgeons, Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3 in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order dated 01.11.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Miscellaneous Application No. 2241 of 2017 in/and First Appeal No. 742 of 2017. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation.

(2.) The Appeal had been preferred by the Petitioners and Respondent No.3 herein, its Consultant Incharge in Plastic Surgery, against the order, dated 12.01.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali), for short "the District Forum", in Complaint Case No. 87 of 2014. By the said order, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by Respondent No.1/Complainant, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant a lump-sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the expenses incurred by him on hospitalizations, medical expenses, compensation etc., within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order, failing which the said amount was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

(3.) The Complainant, a Computer Hardware Engineer, aged 32 years, was suffering from acute abdomen pain. On 09.05.2013, he consulted Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 and was informed that the pain was due to a stone in the gallbladder. He was advised a small laser procedure. The fee for the said procedure, stated to be Rs.25,000/-, was deposited by the Complainant with the said Opposite Parties. According to the Complainant, the said procedure resulted in certain complications, as the Opposite Parties did not have competence and expertise in the field. Besides, the procedure had been performed without any prior requisite investigations. After discharge on 11.05.2013, when the problem persisted, he was re-examined by the Opposite Parties on 18.05.2013 and was admitted in the hospital for indoor treatment. He was discharged on 21.05.2013, with an advice to report on 22.05.2013 for follow-up by an expert. Neither the said expert was called by the Opposite Parties nor the Complainant was given proper treatment, due to which his problem aggravated. He was asked to go to a bigger hospital, where on examination on 24.05.2013 it was found that he had suffered CBD injury during operation/procedure by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, for his treatment the Complainant was admitted twice in the Petitioner Hospital but got no relief. On 31.05.2013 the Complainant was discharged by the Petitioners, stating that he was being discharged at his own request. The Complainant took further treatment in PGI at Chandigarh, where he was hospitalized from 31.05.2013 to 18.06.2013 and then from 20.08.2013 to 17.09.2013. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties on the aforesaid counts, the Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant had prayed for a total compensation of Rs.18,80,000/- together with interest and costs.