(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order of District Forum, Kapurthala dated 8.4.1997 by which the complaint of Smt. Bimla Devi against Dr. Davinder Kaur was dismissed. Consequently the complainant was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the respondents for filing the false and frivolous complaint, besides Rs.1,000/-as cost.
(2.) The brief relevant facts necessary to be mentioned for determining the issue in controversy in the present appeal as alleged are as under : the complainant, Bimla Devi, was suffering from vaginal discharge and occasional bleeding from the vagina since 1992 and she consulted the opposite party No.1 Dr. Davinder Kaur. On the first day of examination, the opposite party No.1 consulted her husband, opposite party No.2 - Dr. G. B. Singh in the same complex and thereafter the complainant was informed that she was suffering from serious disease like cancer which required immediate major operation for the removal of the uterus to save her life. Both the respondents told the appellant to visit them again after taking some medicine for a few days and also asked her to get some blood tests done from the laboratory. The complainant/appellant decided to get operated soon after the blood test and upon the advice of the respondents agreed to be operated at Swaran Hospital for a fee of Rs.3,000/- for which no receipt was given. She was then directed to go to the residence of Dr. Bansal of Bansal Hospital where she was admitted on 16.7.1992. The appellant was also given the choice of being operated at two other Hospitals namely Ravi Heart Hospital and Maternity Home, and Doaba Hospital, Phagwara where respondent No.2 was a visiting surgeon. The appellant opted for being operated at the Bansal's Hospital situated at the residence of Dr. Anita Bansal and Dr. M. L. Bansal in the residential area of Phagwara. The complainant, as narrated, was operated upon on 17.7.1992 by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the removal of uterus. The respondents did not call any anesthesia for administering anesthesia, but administered the same themselves. It further was alleged that the test o Biopsy of deceased part was not done as per routine medical practice before taking the final decision of surgery. The operation was done by the respondent No.2 who was a general surgeon and was not an expert surgeon of gynacology. She stayed in the Bansal's Hospital for a few days but after two days of her stay, she was shocked to know about a very serious complication of surgery as she had lost control of passing of urine and as a result all the clothes including bed sheets started getting wet with the continuous automatic passage of urine. Both the respondents in formed the appellant that such type of problem after surgery was common, which would be cured after a few weeks. Thereafter, the appellant kept on visiting the opposite parties at their residence for follow-up treatment. She was again operated upon on the advice of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in November 1992, July 1993 and September 1994. During this period till 1996, the respondents assured the appellant of being cured and also referred her case to different Doctors for consultation and advice. Thus, the complainant contended that operation was a failure and was also not safe and satisfactory. The complainant has alleged that for all counts, the opposite parties/respondents were negligent and prayed for compensation as sought in the complaint.
(3.) The opposite parties Doctors denied all charges levelled against them in the complaint. They asserted that they were not negligent and there was no deficiency in service as alleged. Complainant was not entitled to claim of Rs.5 lacs or any other award. They gave the best medical treatment to the complainant with deligence and competence. The respondents raised the preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable as it was time barred. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents, which resulted in passing the impugned order.