District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.440/2019.
Date of Institution: 11.09.2019.
Date of Order: 01.08.2022.
Sunita Garg W/o Shri Subhash Chand Garg r/o 2065, sEctor-28, Faridabad, presently residing at Pech Colony Hodal, Distt. Palwal.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Asian Institute of Medical Sciences through its Managing Director/Chairman/Authorized Signatory.
2. Dr. N.K.Pandey, Chairman/Managing Director of Asian Institute of Medical Science.
3. Dr. Anupam Pandey, Director Purchaser Administration of Asian Institute of Medical Sciences.
4. Dr. Prashant Pandey, Diector Seravices Medical of Asian Institute of Medical Sciences.
5. Dr. Ashutosh, Orthopedics and Joint Rep. of Asian Institute of Medical Sciences.
6. Dr. Yuvraj, orthopedics and joint Rep. of Asian Institute of Medical Sciences presently R/o QRG Central Hospital, Sector-16, Faridabad.
7. Dr. Sumit, Orthopedics and Joint rep. of Asian Institute of Medical Sciences.
8. Dr. Rakesh, Orthopedics and Joint Rep. of Asian Institute of Medical Sciences.
All the opposite parties are R/o Asian Hospital, Sector-21A, Badkhal Flyover Road Faridabad Distt, Faridabad.
9. The Insurance Company of the opposite parties.(if insured, the particulars of the insurance are to be furnished by the opposite parties).
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
PRESENT: Shri J.P.Singla, counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. J.S.Bhadana, counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 to 8.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant Smt. Sunita Gar all of a sudden slipped in bathroom at her residence; on daed 03.04.2017, the complainant Smt. Sunita Garg visited to the hospital of opposite party NO.1 where Dr. Satish Chaku, the consultant emergency services of opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to admit in emergency of the hospital of opposite party No.1. The doctors of opposite party No.1 examined the complainant and observed/declared fracture in the left distal femur of the complainant and the doctors of opposite party No.1 further advised the complainant to undergo with the surgery of the left distal femur of the complainant. The complainant was admitted in the hospital of opposite party No.1 under the observation of Mr. Yuvraj, Dr. Rakesh, orthopedics and joint rep. alongwith his others colleagues operated the complainant on dated 03.04.2017 with Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) by implanting with plate in left distal femur. Thereafter the complainant was discharged on 06.04.2017 and an amount of Rs.1,27,981/- was charged from health insurance TPA of the complainant. After about 4 months i.e. on 09.08.2017 the complainant felt severe pain in left knee which was operated by the doctor of opposite party No.1 on account of that the complainant re-visited to the hospital of opposite party No.1 where the complainant was told by the doctors of opposite party No.1 that the plate implanted in the left distal femur of the complainant had broken, the treating doctors of the opposite party No.1 i.e. the opposite parties Nos.5 to 8, made a plastered to the complainant for about a month still the complainant was not able to bear the severe pain of the leg and again the complainant had to go to the opposite parties where the complainant was advised to make again a surgery. The doctors of opposite party NO.1 admitted the complainant on 29.08.2017 as to re-operate the complainant. On 30.08.2017 again a surgery was done by the doctors, opposite parties Nos. 5 to 8. Thereafter, the complainant was discharge don 04.09.2017. Though the complainant visited to the hospital of the opposite parties for follow up treatment as prescribed by the opposite parties treating doctors on 14.09.2017 and on 07.10.2017 yet the complainant was not feeling well rather than suffering from severe pain and had become permanent disabled; the complainant awared the opposite parties so many times with regard to her pain and sufferings but the opposite parties paid no heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant was not able to walk properly and it was also not possible for the her to stand without any support this was all on account of rash and negligence act on the part of all the above said opposite parties Nos.1 to 8 as the opposite parties implanted/used defective inferior, duplicate, tat, trumpery and irregular plat ein the knee of the complainant at the time of Ist operation done in the month of April, 2017. If the opposite parties had inserted/implanted genuine, good and superior quality of plate in knee of the complainant, the complainant would neither had suffered a loss of mental agony pain and neither sufferings nor the complainant was required to re-operate. However, the opposite parties had purchased an inferior quality of plate as to cheat the complainant and to keep happy the opposite party No.1 the complainant was kept in dark as the opposite parties had assure the complainant to implant a good, genuine and superior quality of late. Though the complainant always performed due care and whenever the opposite parties asked the complainant to visit their hospital for follow up treatment she complied with all the directions of the opposite parties. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) pay a total sum of Rs.18,50,000/- alongiwth future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of discharge i.e. from 04.09.2017 till its realization jointly & severally on account of pain and suffering, harassment, permanent disability, mental agony etc. due to implantation of inferior quality of plate in left distal femur of the complainant inspite of assurance implant of good superior and genuine plate.
b) pay Rs. 33,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 8 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 03.04.2017 at 00:09 she was diagnosed “Periprosthetic Fracture left Distal Femur (Post TKR)”. Initially the patient approached the emergency and thereafter, after consultation with doctors. The next procedure surgeries etc. were to be conducted as per the diagnosed or require b y the team of doctors. The complainant were admitted to the extent that the complainant was treated under the unit where Dr. Yuvraj Kumar, Dr. Rakesh, Dr. Sumit and Dr. Ashutosh were working. The complainant was operated by the team of doctors. The procedure was done and internal fixation with plating for left distal femur was done under G.A. + block on 03.04.2017. it was also correct that a plate was implanted as mentioned in this para. The complainant was discharged on 06.04.2017 in a stable condition with advice for the follow up review after seven days in Orthopaedic department. When the complainant/patient wass discharged, it was specifically advised the preventive measures that if too much weight was put on the knee or any fall the implanted plate could be broken because at such age bones get week. It was pertinent to mention that the complainant get the knee replacement before five years from other hospital prior to the treatment of opposite party during the follow ups on 15..04.2017, 06.05.2017, 20.05.2017 in the OPD. The complainant was advised not to put weight on the leg. It was submitted that the plate which was implanted was of a high quality. The complainant visited the hospital on 09.08.2017. The x-ray was conducted and it was found that the implanted plate was broken. It could be the patient did not follow the advice of the doctors after the discharged, despite the fact the patient was advised on the follow up dates. The treatment was given t her and was told specifically that if the pain still persists the patient might for the surgery if required. However the complainant was again admitted on 29.08.2018 and procedure was conducted on 30.08.2017 as mentioned in the discharge summary. She was discharged on 04.09.2017 in a stable condition with follow up for review after 10 days. It was admitted to the extent that the surgery was conducted because the implanted plate was broken and the same was removed. Thereafter the patient was discharge don -4.09.2017 in a stable condition with follow up review. It was advised that the patient must take care that the weight must not be put on the leg and she was also advised to follow up with the physiotherapist. This time also the plate which was implanted was of a high quality i.e Zimmer. All the invoices were taken in the name of the patient, which was shown in Annexure C, D, E and F. The patient was again and again caution and advised not to put weight on the leg. On the follow ups nothing specific was told to the treating doctor. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 8 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Instead of filing of the evidence of the complainant, the complainant has filed an application for issuing direction to the Medical Board of Directors Through Civil Surgeon Faridabad for the verification of genuineness of the plate implanted the plate in left distal femur of the complainant. Reply to application was filed by the opposite party and the same was allowed. The Medical Board of Directors through Civil Surgeon, Faridabad was directed to give the report of the above said title on 04.03.2021.
4. Medical Boards Opinion Report received from Civil Hospital Faridabad on 07.06.2022.
5. A Medical Board comprising Dr. Ravi Shankar Gaur, Addl. SMO, Orthopaedic Surgeon,, Dr. Abhishek Varshney, MO, Orthopaedic Surgeon & Dr. Sumit Sardana, MO Orthopaedic Surgeon of B.K.Civil Hospital, Faridabad was constituted and said Medical Board submitted its report vide letter No. 172 dated 09.05.2022. Enquiry members are of the opinion that “The implant used for open reduction and internal fixation is of standard quality & genuine, however implant may broke if there is early weight bearing, delayed union and non union of bone.
6. The complainant has not led any cogent evidence to prove the factum that doctors of opposite parties hospital were negligent and careless in treating the complainant. On the basis of opinion of medical board and in the absence of any cogent evidence merely on the basis of presumption, it cannot be deemed that there was any negligence or carelessness or deficient service on the part of opposite parties.
7. As such, neither any deficiency in service nor medical negligence on the part of opposite parties is proved in the present complaint.
8. Resultantly, the present complaint is meritless and the same is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 01.08.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
