PARVEEN SHARMA Vs. TIRATH GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this complaint, the gravamen of the charge levelled by the complainant is, that in February, 1995 she developed severe pain for which she approached M/s. National Clinic and Maternity Home, Panchkula on 17th February, 1995. Thereafter certain laboratory tests were prescribed and after undergoing the same she was referred by one Dr. Sushma Bakshi to consult Dr. Tirath Goyal, Senior Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Dera Bassi, Distt. Patiala (Punjab ). According to the complaint, the complainant accompanied by her husband met Dr. Tirath Goyal Opposite Party No.1 on 19th June, 1995 at Government Hospital, Dera Bassi and showed necessary tests alongwith other documents relating to the previous history of the case. The complaint proceeds further to narrate, that the complainant again visited Dr. Tirath Goyal, Senior Medical Officer in the General Hospital at Dera Bassi, Distt. Patiala number of times. Ultimately, under his advice the complainant got herself admitted in the Nursing Home of Opposite Party No.2 on 13th July, 1995, where she was operated upon by Opposite Party No.1 for the removal other uterus and was discharged from the Nursing Home on 15th July, 1995. It is further alleged, that thereafter when the pain and bleeding did not stop, the complainant alongwith her husband again approached Dr. Tirath Goyal Opposite Party No.1 in the Government Hospital at Dera Bassi, Distt. Patiala in the 3rd week of July, 1995. On these premises, being dissatisfied with the treatment received from Opposite Party, the present complaint has been filed attributing deficiency in service on his part, as under : "the Opposite Party No.1 has also committed unfair trade practice by doing private operation upon the complainant in spite of his being in the Government service, and that too without the consent and knowledge of the Government or the complainant. " "it is therefore prayed that the Opposite Party No.1 may be summoned and be directed to make a compensation of Rs. seven lacs payable to the complainant, for the deficiency in service committed by him. It is further prayed that the appropriate authority may be directed to initiate enquiry against the Opposite Party No.1 for carrying on private operation and charging consideration in spite of his being in Government employment at that time. "

(2.) Though from a bare look at the complaint no prima facie case is made out for conferring jurisdiction on this Commission to proceed against Dr. Tirath Goyal, Senior Medical Officer, Dera Bassi, Distt. Patiala especially regarding any departmental action against him, yet in the interest of justice and to be fair to the complainant, we issued notice to the Opposite Parties. In response, Opposite Party No.1-Dr. Tirath Goyal has filed his short reply, paras 3,4 and 5 whereof are reproduced as under : "dr. Tirath Goyal answering respondent stands posted at Dera Bassi and even now working as S. M. O. Primary Health Centre, Kalo Majra as per averment, the petitioner/ complainant did visit Dera Bassi on three occasions in the State of Punjab and as such the Commission has no territorial jurisdiction. There is a prayer for direction to intitate enquiry against the answering respondent also which will require a probe into the departmental instructions. The complainant hails from Panchkula. The answering respondent stands posted in the State of Punjab. Besides there being sinister motive to clothe the Hon'ble Commission with jurisdiction because amount claimed is Rs.7 lacs, disputed questions of fact and law stand involved because there is a prayer for directing an enquiry also. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed and remedy if any be sought in Civil Court. "

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission on its original side for variety of reasons i. e. relief sought being departmental action against a Government Doctor posted as Senior Medical Officer in Punjab; secondly the claim being inflated i. e. Rs.7 lacs having been made to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, without there being any detail or break-up of the huge amount so claimed and without making out even a prima facie case for attributing negligence in service on the part of the Doctor. Consequently, we have no hesitation in dismissing the complaint by relegating the complainant to seek her remedy before the Civil Court for the redressal of her grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.