Date of Filing: 23.07.2015
Date of Order: 28.11.2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred in short as O.P) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and prays for direction to the O.P to refund an amount of Rs.18,000/- expenditure incurred by the complainant towards the medical checkup expenses at O.P. Hospital, towards TMT check up expenses at Columbia Asia Hospital and further to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and to pay cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant being a senior citizen and for his routine annual medical checkup approached the O.P. clinic on 10.2.2015 and underwent several medical tests as suggested and prescribed by the O.P. It is stated that, as the eco-machine was under repair excluding this test the complainant completed all other tests including TMT. During TMT the first stage itself when the complainant took barely few steps and the TMT machine started showing heart beat rate reading as 200 and the complainant noticed this and requested the technician to restart the TMT as the machine was showing error reading. The TMT machine technician did not oblige for repeat of TMT deliberately and intentionally despite knowing the TMT machine was showing wrong reading and recorded the wrong reading only. Further complainant submits that the consulting doctor of the O.P one Dr.Narayana Swamy head of the cardiology met the complainant for final briefing on the medical tests. The complainant informed the consulting doctor about the malfunctioning of the particular TMT machine and the error reading recording. The consulting doctor did not oblige to listen to the complainant about the malfunctioning of the TMT machine and confirmed the positive result of TMT for inducible ischaemia without properly analyzing the TMT report and without any application of mind. The consulting doctor did not bother or care to apply his mind to read between the erratic reading of TMT and Echo result and it is a sheer carelessness, medical negligence and deliberate intention to get the complainant admitted to their hospital for treatment and make wrongful gain. The complainant on his own for second opinion approached the Columbia Asia Hospital and underwent TMT. The result was shown as negative and the consulting doctor of the hospital advised the complainant that there is no necessity to undergo Angiogram. Further the complainant informed the O.P. hospital consulting doctor who gave a wrong advice and the said doctor called the complainant for personal discussion. The complainant went to the O.P. hospital discussed with the doctor despite of showing negative result of TMT, the consulting doctor did not agreed about the TMT machine malfunctioning or erratic reading in the O.P. hospital.
3. The complainant further submits that, the consulting doctor of the O.P. defending the wrong report generated by the O.P hospital without any application of mind and informed that the complainant was suffering from ‘coronary artery spasm’ which has put the complainant into mental agony and stress. The complainant could not bear the consequences and he approached the NH Narayana Multi-Speciality Hospital with both the TMT results to get the third opinion and the said hospital doctor after seeing TMT result and the advice given by the O.P. hospital consulting doctor, expressed at the first instance itself that there is something wrong with the system due to its erratic nature of result. The same doctor went through the TMT result of Columbia Asia Hospital and after analyzing the said TMT result advised the complainant that the TMT is negative and no treatment required as there are no symptoms of any blockage. In this regard the complainant and all his family members were put to mental agony and sheer medical negligence and error report generated due to malfunctioning of the TMT machine of the O.P. Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice dated 19.5.2015 and there was exchange of notices but the O.P did not refund the amount to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
4. Upon issuance of notice, O.P entered its appearance through its advocate and filed its version. In the version it is contended that O.P hospital is known for its advanced medical technology and good medical service also having maintain the international standard in their hospitality and they are the recipient of award against their contribution in the medical field. It is contended that, the complainant approached the O.P for a regular checkup and opted to undergo treadmill test and thereafter met the concerned surgeon for the opinion. The complainant was advised to undergo cardiac angiogram for more clarification. The advice of the O.P only in the interest of the complainant to confirm that there is no problem for complainant. It is contended that TMT machine had been working properly and the reading which was given was accurate and hence denied the allegations of the complainant about the TMT machine was false. It is also contended that complainant did not complained anything working of the TMT machine which was only for the sake of strengthening of his case. It is a fact that cardiac angiogram will be made to accurate report about the functioning of the heart. It is submitted that O.P was not aware that the complainant is having medi-claim policy and the admission/treatments will be made based upon the patients background and diagnosis. Further contended that the present complaint is filed only to harass the O.P Further this O.P denied all the allegations of the complainant are false and incorrect. On other grounds O.P ultimately prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. To substantiate the above case, both the parties have filed their affidavit evidence along with documents. We also heard the arguments.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the complainant, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled for the
relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A): In the affirmative.
POINT (B): In the Partly affirmative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No (A) and (B):-
8. On perusing the pleadings of the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant approached the O.P hospital for regular checkup and has undergone TMT test. It is the specific allegation of the complainant is that the said TMT machine given the wrong reading and as per the wrong reading complainant heart beat rate reading was 200 and the O.P doctors asked the complainant to undergo cardiac angiogram deliberately and intentionally despite knowing the TMT machine was showing the wrong reading and they recorded wrong reading only. Thereafter complainant has taken second opinion from the Colombia Asia Hospital, wherein which it is ascertain that complainant is not suffering from any blockage in the heart and there is no need of angioplasty. Thereafter the complainant met the O.P doctor and discussed about the mal-reading of the heart beat rate reading and asked to refund the amount.
9. Per-contra, O.P contended that in order to ensure more and in the interest complainant only they have advised the complainant to undergo angiogram to confirm that the complainant has not having any heart block. Hence contended that the complainant purposefully filed the complaint to harass the O.P.
10. It is pertinent to note that, the O.P did not produce any cogent evidence that the TMT machine has working properly on the day of complainant’s check-up. Further the O.P is also not examined the operator of the TMT machine in order to elicit that the machine is not wrong. On perusal of Apollo Hospital cash bill along with the TMT results, it is evident that the complainant paid Rs.7,030/- and the report reveals that the TMT result is positive and advised to undergo coronary angiogram. It is worth to note that, as per the result of the TMT check-up the doctors advised to undergo coronary angiogram. It is note worthy to mention that when the doctor suggested coronary angiogram and on the account of reading of heart beat rate 200, naturally the complainant consulted the doctor about the wrong reading of the heart beat 200 as per the TMT report and if the complaint is lodged about the TMT reading the doctor might have suggested the once again to undergo TMT test and if the same result is occurred then the doctor may suggest to undergo coronary angiogram. However, the complainant has taken the second opinion from the Colombia Asia Hospital wherein which the result of the test is quite contrary to the earlier result. On perusal of report of the Colombia Asia hospital it is revealed that the result is negative. On perusal of O.P. hospital report and as well as Colombia Asia hospital report it clearly made us to draw inference that the TMT reading given by the O.P hospital is wrong and it is a erratic reading. Therefore, due to act of O.P and its inaccurate TMT reading made the complainant to suffer and to undergo second test and incurred unnecessarily expenditure. In the light of above discussions and on the basis of available evidence on record we are of the considered opinion that the complainant proved deficiency of service on the part of the O.P and hence complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.18,000/- along with Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and it will meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answered the Point No. (A) in the affirmative and Point No.(B) in the partly affirmative.
POINT No. (C):
11. On the basis of answering the Points (A) and (B), in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.
- The O.P i.e. Apollo Clinic, represented by its Centre Manager/ Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt this order, failing which O.P is directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.
- The O.P is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
- The O.P is hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 28th Day of November 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
*RAK
