PARMINDER SINGH Vs. GENERAL HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against judgment and order dated 11.2.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 161 of 1999, Parminder Singh v. General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh and Dr. G.D. Singh, Orthopaedic Surgeon, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh.

(2.) DR . G.D. Singh died during the pendency of the case and the sole surviving opposite party before the District Forum was the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. The death of Dr. G.D. Singh took place after the complaint case was remanded in Appeal No. 329 of 2003 vide order dated 29.7.2003. While allowing the appeals filed against an earlier order dated 4.12.2002 of the District Forum, the District Forum was directed to allow Dr. G.D. Singh to file his own reply to the complaint case and to lead such evidence as he wanted to lead in support of the defence version. The complainant was also permitted to lead evidence of an expert and particularly Dr. Parminder Singh so that he was available to the O.Ps. for cross -examination.

(3.) AFTER the remand of the case, Dr. G.D. Singh had filed his separate written statement wherein he had denied categorically that he received a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - from the complainant for performing the operation. It was also denied that Rs. 3,500/ - were received for purchase of the rod. Regarding the purchase of the rod, the plea taken by Dr. G.D. Singh was that the same was not in stock and might have been purchased from the market either by the patient himself or some relative attending him. It was denied that the complainant was a consumer and the O.Ps. were provider of the service to him inasmuch as the complainant was Government employee of the State of Punjab and entitled for free treatment. Regarding his own competence, Dr. G.D. Singh alleged that he was a fully qualified doctor having experience of more than 20 years and performed 100 such like orthopaedic operations successfully and there has been no complaint of any sort. The complainant was referred from Mohali on 30.10.1997 and was admitted in the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh by Dr. M. P. Singh who had examined him and prescribed necessary treatment. It was admitted that Dr. G.D. Singh performed the operation on 1.11.1997. Dr. G.D. Singh referred to the hospital record and contended that the operation was quite successful and there was no complaint and even after the operation, the condition of the complainant was fair and there was no fresh complaint either on 2.11.1997, 3.11.1997 or thereafter up to 7.11.1997 when the complainant was discharged from the hospital. The complainant himself wanted to go home and was discharged on his own request but he was advised to come back to hospital for review after four days and also for removal of his stitches but he did not turn up. He further alleged that the story of removal of butterfly was concocted and in fact nothing was removed at the time of operation.