RAJNI BANSAL Vs. D C MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has come up in appeal against the order dated 6.5.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Jagadhri, whereby her complaint against Dr. D. C. Mittal and Dr. Mrs. Maiti Mittal of Jagadhri alleging professional negligence and deficiency in service in rendering medical treatment has been dismissed.

(2.) According to the complainant, she was admitted in the respondents' hospital at Jagadhri for delivery on 15.3.1992 and was operated upon the same day when a male child was born. She remained in the hospital for a week and was discharged from there on 22.3.1992. Later on she again visited the respondents' hospital after about three months as she was complaining of pain. On 6.7.1992 she had undergone ultrasound and X-ray at Kurukshetra and in the report it was opined that there was some "inflammatory mass foreign body inside. " For that, on 19.8.1992 the respondent-Doctors again operated upon the complainant, but she was not relieved of the pain. Ultimately, she got herself admitted in the P. G. I, at Chandigarh on 6.10.1993 and remained under treatment there for about a month. There again an operation was conducted on 6.11.1993 when it was reported that some segment of gauze piece was found in the body. It was taken out and found to have fresh and smooth margins. Aggrieved against that, the complainant approached the Consumer Forum, Jagadhri, claiming Rs.5 lacs against the respondent-Doctors. In the written reply filed by the respondents, it was pleaded that no doubt the complainant was operated upon in their hospital but the history of the patient showed ulcer and after examining the ultrasound report it was found that there was inflammation in the intestines, for which operation was not possible at Jagadhri. After the histopathology test by one Dr. S. P. Garg it was opined that the patient was suffering from tuberculosis. Thereafter, the complainant never turned up for about two months and might have obtained treatment at some other place. In these circumstances, it has been vehemently pleaded, that so far as the respondents are concerned the complainant was fully looked after and there was no negligence or deficiency in the professional service rendered to her. After examining the matter in detail, the learned District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to establish any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

(3.) In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the submissions made by the complainant before the learned District Consumer Forum. Having heard the learned Counsel and after going through the record we are satisfied that there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Jagadhri. There is no evidence whatsoever on record which could connect the respondents with the alleged negligence or deficiency in the discharge of their professional medical service rendered to the complainant. Otherwise also the report of the PGI at Chandigarh and the final analysis made there had clearly shown, that the segment of gauze piece taken out had quite fresh and smooth margins. The possibility of the complainant having received medical treatment at some other places, i. e. other than that of the respondents at Jagadhri, could not be ruled out. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.