Out of Rs.1 Crore, Rs.75 lakhs were claimed towards mental pain and agony.. Well, the case got dismissed. The patient was also found to be in good health.

Can any one suffer mental pain & agony of Rs.75 lakhs ? !! - The unrealistic case filed just to confer jurisdiction directly on NCDRC, got dismissed.

Case Details.
Reetu Jhamat V/s. M/s. Neelkanth Hospital, Gurgaon, & 2 others.
CC No.2661/2017.
Decided on 15/05/2018.

Before :
HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER.
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER.

Judgment Link :
http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FCC%2F2661%2F2017&dtofhearing=2018-05-15

Facts in short :
1.The Complainant was having abdominal pain, on 03.08.2016 approached Dr. Subrat Saxena i.e. the Opponent No.2 in the said Hospital. After USG she was diagnosed with “Cholelithiassis” i.e. Gall bladder stone (multiple small gall bladder stone).
2. She underwent laparoscopic Cholecystectomy on the same day and discharged from the hospital on 5.8.2016. However she had severe abdominal pain, she was again hospital on 07.08.2016. After further investigation,  the doctors found that large amount of fluid was collected in the abdomen and lungs.  The MRCP  was also done and reported as segmental irregularity and narrowing of common hepatic duct.
3. The Complainant thereafter got admitted in Medanta Hospital 10/08/2016. The MRCP was performed, it diagnosed Biliary fistula  & lung bases revealed bilateral mild pleural effusion. Thereafter due to complications she had to be admitted on and off in the Hospital for next 3 months and finally on 08.12.2017,  she was operated successfully operated for exploratory laparotomy with hepatico-jejunostomy. 
4. Thus she filed a compliant with Haryana State Medical Counsel against the Hospital and thereafter, the complainant  filed a complaint before this Commission on 11.09.2017 for compensation of Rs.1,10,06,768/- under different heads. It was contended that she had to spent about 7 lakhs rupees in Medanta Hospital and she as well as her husband lost their jobs. Plus all her family members suffered a great deal of mental pain and agony and initially claimed Rs.75 lakhs towards the same, but later on in the Affidavit, complainant tried to explain the bifurcation under various heads of general damages. 
5. The Opponents refuted all the allegations and contended hat the facilities in the Hospital are upto the mark and proper treatment was given as per protocol and the claim was highly inflated.

Held :
1. The Commission firstly asked the complainant to submit the details of different compensation amount under different heads. 
2. The Commission observed that the Complainant could not produce any documentary evidence to prove her bonafide loss of salary (including that of her husband). 
3.We are unable to understand which nature of suffering in the future will cause loss of Rs. 20 lakh.  Moreover, the complainant is present before us during the arguments and she appears to be healthy.  She did not suffer from any deformity.
4. The Complainant failed to prove her alleged claim of Rs.1 Crore, even though it was an admitted fact that she spent about Rs.8 lakhs in her hospitlisation. It was held that the compliant was unrealistic and was inflated  just to confer the jurisdiction upon National Commission.
5. The Complaint was dismissed, but there was no finding given upon the allegation of Medical Negligence and the complainant was given liberty to file a fresh case, if she could as per law.

There is no court fees stamp duty attracted for filing a case in Consumer Court unlike in Civil Court, where stamp duty is dependent upon the value of claim made. In the instant case also, no doubt the lady and her family must have suffered a lot, however, mere allegations in the compliant are of no use unless supported by documents. First Plead and then lead (evidence) is the rule of law. The Court could have saddled cost upon the complainant for filing such inflated compliant, but seems to have refrained since CPA is a Welfare Legislation. 
In previous case also the National Commission dismissed the complaint claiming Rs.6 Cr.+ compensation as it was proved from the Facebook posts that Complainant was fine and hearty. 
You may see it on following link. :
http://advrohiterande.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-case-claiming-rs6-crores.html

 In the instant case complainant herself was present in-person before the Court. This factum is very important and may be adopted by lower Forums.

Thanks and Regards

Adv. Rohit Erande.
Pune. © 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency – Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital “Its in the interest of Patients that Doctors. should not be dragged to the Court unnecessarily”” – National Commission observed while dismissing the Compliant for damages of Rs.2.5 Crores as it prevents Doctors from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost. A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital Case : SUMAN TANEJA V/s. METRO HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE & 3 ORS, decided on 02/02/2016. Factual Matrix in nutshell : 1. The Complainant, widow of deceased patient claimed damages to the tune of Rs. Two & half Crores on the ground that her husband who was diagnosed as Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction (IWMI).did not receive the emergency treatment in Golden Hours.The Doctor ...
Read more

A "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.-Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

 The "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.© a. Non availability of Operation Theatre is not a valid ground to hold Hospital Negligent : b. Non functioning of Machines and Equipments cannot be said to be Negligence. c. It is an incorrect assumption to say that, "since surgery was performed by a doctor, he alone would be responsible for different aspects of the treatment required and given to the patient". d. It is too much to expect from a doctor to remain on the bed side of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital. e. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence. f.  In spite of the treatment, if the patient had not survived, the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable g. The doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of  res ips...
Read more

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section " The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (MSCDRC) in its recent judgment dated 31/03/2017, gave the verdict against the Doctor, but absolved the Hospital.. Case details - Mr.Prashant Tamhane V/s. P.D. hinduja Hospital and anr. CC No.221 of 2003. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do… Facts in short : 1. This is the case of 2002. The wife (since deceased) of the Complainant was admitted in the Hospital after the blood reports revealed symptoms of hepatitis. There she was examined by Dr.Ashit Hegde, the Opponent no.2 Doctor in the present case. At that time he after examining the patient he thought it fit for not admitting the patient. By taking medication she was improving. 2.However after about one month, she had Chest pain and difficulty in breathing. Initial X-ray was normal, but in later X-ray, she was diagno...
Read more