- (1.)The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against order dated 26.2.2003, passed by District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.3788/2001 - entitled Shri R. P. Sharma V/s. Handa Nursing Home and Anr.
(2.)The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Shri R. P. Sharma, had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act, before the District Forum, against the respondents, alleging medical negligence/deficiency in service on their part. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, for the alleged deficiency in service/negligence, the appellant had claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental and physical pain, a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards medical expenses, and another sum of Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation.
(3.)The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondents. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that prior to the admission of the appellant in Handa Nursing Home (respondent No.1), the appellant was treated in Hemraj Jain Nursing Home and as he was not fully cured by the doctors in Hemraj Jain Nursing Home, he was admitted in Handa Nursing Home (respondent No.1), on 29th March, 2001, in a serious condition. It was stated that on admission the appellant was diagnosed as a case of urinary fastula. It was stated that the appellant was duly informed that the treatment would take long time and three weeks hospitalization was required for treating the appellant. It was stated that the appellant was admitted in Handa Nursing Home (respondent No.1), after explaining full facts. It was stated that necessary investigations were carried out and on 30th March, 2001 DJ Stent was placed and the drainage tube, which was not in proper position, was put in proper position. It was stated that constant monitoring was done and necessary medical treatment, as required, was provided to the appellant so as to cure him completely. It was also stated that considering the economic condition of the appellant and the fact that the appellant was in the hospital of Hemraj Jain Nursing Home for a long period, the appellant was not charged for the change of catheter and even for the room and nursing charges from 24th April, 2001 to 26th April, 2001, i. e. the period the appellant stayed in the nursing home of respondent No.1. The allegation of negligence/deficiency in service was specifically denied.