GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. DEEPAK HOSPITAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GULSHAN Kumar complainant was 21 years of age at the time of filing of the complaint. He had a medical problem while passing the urine. He was advised to get the treatment from Deepak Hospital, Sarabha Nagar, Feozepur Road, Ludhiana i.e. Respondent No. 2 of which Dr. Rajan Respondent No. 1 is the Incharge. Accordingly, he went to Dr. Rajan Respondent No. l who had advised certain medical tests. The complainant got conducted the said medical tests on the advice of Dr. Rajan from Deewan Hospital, Ludhiana including HIV test. The HIV test was found to be negative.

(2.) IT was further pleaded that the complainant went to the respondent hospital on 17.4.2004 with the abovesaid medical test report. Dr. Rajan Respondent No. l diagnosed the case of the complainant to be a case of stone in the gall bladder. He was admitted in the hospital. He was put on dialysis for about 5 days and thereafter, the stones were removed from the gall bladder by using laser techniques. The complainant was discharged from Deepak Hospital and the complainant was advised by Respondent No. l to get the dialysis conducted twice in a week. The complainant remained admitted in the respondent hospital for the period from 17.4.2004 to 25.4.2004, during which period, the complainant was administered blood. It was arranged by the authorities/staff of the respondent hospital for which the payment was made by the complainant. He was discharged from the hospital on 26.4.2004. As advised by Dr. Rajan, the complainant continued getting dialysis from the respondent hospital upto June, 2004. During this period, the complainant was given 25 units of blood arranged by the authorities of the respondent hospital for which the payment was made by the complainant. The complainant also got Pneumonia for which he was administered very costly injections.

(3.) THE medical problem of the complainant re -occurred. He was again brought to the respondent hospital in January, 2005. At that time, he was treated as an outdoor patient and this process was continued upto April, 2005. The complainant was again put on dialysis on 2 -3 times. The health of the complainant worsened and no improvement was shown. Ultimately the complainant was again admitted in the respondent hospital on 2.5.2005 where he remained admitted till 12.5.2005. Again he was admitted on 14.5.2005 till 27.5.2005. During this period of treatment also, the complainant was administered 18 units of blood as he was put on repeated dialysis. Again the blood was arranged by the authorities of the respondent hospital for which the payment was made by the complainant.