HEMLATA Vs. VIPIN PREMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 29.9.2003 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint with the allegations that she is 20 years old and from some time she was suffering from stomach pain. On 5.9.2000, she got herself checked up and treated by Dr. Tarun Gupta, but even then she got no relief. Dr. Tarun Gupta on 11.9.2000 advised her to get the ultrasound of her stomach, on which the complainant got her ultrasound on the Diagnostic Centre of the opposite party the next day and paid a sum of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred ). The opposite party alleged that her report is absolutely perfect and there is no defect in her report. The complainant showed her ultrasound report to Dr. Tarun Gupta, who after examining the report gave medicines. After that also the complainant was not feeling well and her pain was consistently increasing. On 18.9.2000, she went to Dr. Vipin Mehra of Hardwar, who after examining the ultrasound report advised her to undergo ultrasound from another doctor. Then the complainant got ultrasound of her stomach from Dhanwantri Diagnostic Centre, Ranipur Road, Hardwar, who in his report alleged that there is cyst in the right side of the abdomen. On 20.9.2000, Dr. J. P. Sharma, Kankhal also approved the above report and for satisfaction got the ultrasound conducted in Sai Ultrasound Centre, Hardwar, in which also the cyst was found. She went to Dr. N. K. Aggarwal (Surgeon) along with all the three reports, who advised her for operation. She got herself operated in Prem Nursing Home, Jwalapur, Hardwar, where the cyst of her stomach was removed. The complainant had to get other ultrasound due to the wrong report of the opposite party and also operation, due to which she suffered mental agony and financial loss. The complainant sent a notice to the opposite party for compensation but the opposite party did not give her any compensation. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint.

(3.) The opposite party filed written statement and admitted that the ultrasound was conducted at its Ultrasound Centre. It is however alleged that there was no cyst in the abdomen of the complainant and if there was some swelling in her stomach, that cannot be detected in ultrasound. It is said that at the time of ultrasound, the complainant was not having any problem of cyst. She did not contact the opposite party on increase of her pain, otherwise he would have conducted ultrasound free of cost. He has further alleged that cyst can be of different kinds and its growth depends on the time of pain. There can be pain before inclamatory cyst, whereas in case of non-inclamatory cyst, the pain develops afterwards. According to him, if on 18.9.2000 any such cyst has been found, then definitely it would have developed between 12.9.2000 and 18.9.2000, for which he is not responsible. He said that Dr. J. P. Sharma is not recognized by the Medical Council and the advice given by him to the complainant to get the ultrasound was uncalled for. According to him, the complainant has not suffered any mental agony and financial loss because if there is any disease in the body, it is to be treated somewhere and some expenses are to be incurred in that also. It is alleged the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.