JOT MATERNITY AND CHILDREN HOSPITAL Vs. SANJOGITTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Appeal Nos.1186 of 2000 and 1165 of 2000, one filed by Jot Maternity and Children Hospital and the other filed by Sanjogitta are being disposed of by a single order as they have been filed against the same order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum) dated 1.9.2000.

(2.) Facts are being taken from Appeal No.1186 of 2000. The main grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that on 24.1.2000 at about 10.00 a. m. , the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had developed gynaecological problem and was taken to the hospital run by the appellants/respondents (hereinafter called the respondents) and she was given intravenous injection which was wrongly injected and immediately after the complainant developed swelling and pain in left (L) fore-arm but the respondent did not care to take further medical steps inspite of the complaint made by the complainant but instead thereof the complainant was sent home and it was told by the respondent that the pain and swelling would automatically subside. The complainant developed severe pain at night and she was again taken to the respondent on 25.1.2000 at about 9.00 a. m. but they again overlooked the problem of the complainant and told her to come the other day. After hearing the un-satisfactory reply and response of the respondents the complainant was then taken to E. S. I. Dispensary at Mohali. The complainant was referred by them for further necessary treatment at P. G. I. , Sector 12, Chandigarh, where she was admitted in P. G. I. , Sector 12, Chandigarh. She was treated there and dis-charged on 1.2.2000 with the advice of follow up treatment and regular limb physiotherapy exercise.

(3.) It was further the case of the complainant that she was still under treatment and she had spent Rs.20,000/- on her treatment and transportation and she had further developed immobility and disability in her left arm. She had also suffered loss in her business to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. It was further alleged by the complainant that the respondent had shown utter negligence in performance of their duties and they were deficient in service and thus, they were liable to pay damages etc. to the complainant.