BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.180 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 23.05.2019

      Date of Decision: 31.05.2024

1.       Paramjit Kaur w/o late Sh. Raghbir Singh aged about 61 years.

2.       Mandeep Singh Walia s/o late Sh. Raghbir Singh aged about 39        years.

          Both residents of H.No. B-36/179, Kahanpur Mohalla, Old Sabzi     Mandi, Kapurthala.

..........Complainants

Versus

1.       Cardionova Institute of Medical Sciences, 296, Nakodar Road,          Opp. R.K. Dhaba, Jalandhar City through its         proprietor/partner/director.

2.       Dr. Nitish Garg, proprietor/partner/director, Cardionova Institute       of Medical Sciences, 296, Nakodar Road, Opp. R.K. Dhaba,       Jalandhar City.

3.       Vikram Hospital, 11, Golden Avenue, Garha Road, Jalandhar.

4.       The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 4E/14, Azad Bhawan,      Jhandelwalan Ext., New Delhi-110055.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Arvind Sharda, Adv. Counsel for the Complainants.

                   Sh. Naval Sehgal, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

                   Sh. Rajeev Bhutani, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.

                   Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OP No.4.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein it is alleged that the complainant no.1 is a house wife, who was fully dependent upon her husband namely late S. Raghbir Singh, who died an untimely death at the hands of OPs No.1 and 2. The complainant no.2 is son of late S. Rabhbir Singh and is currently employed in a private job. The complainants availed the services of opposite parties for providing medical treatment to late S. Raghbir Singh, who expired due to negligence of OPs No.1 and 2. The OP No.2 is a heart specialist as well as proprietor/partner/director of OP No.1. The OP No.3 is the hospital, who gave the initial treatment to the Sh. Raghbir Singh and later on referred him to OPs No.1 and 2. As such, the complainants are beneficiary of services rendered by OPs No.1 and 2. The OP No.3 is the proforma party and no relief is claimed against it. On 12-11-2017, S. Raghbir Singh felt some discomfort in the afternoon and he complained of congestion in the chest. The complainants took S. Rabhbir Singh (here-in-after described as patient) to Dr. Vikram at OP No.3. Dr. Vikram is family physician of the complainants. The complainants along with the patient arrived at OP No.3 at about 3:45 pm on the same day. The patient was admitted over there. Dr. Vikram examined patient and opined that it was the case of heart problem. Dr. Vikram advised the complainants to shift the patient at OP No.1, which was a heart specialty centre working under the supervision of heart specialist Dr. Nitish Garg. Since Dr. Vikram was family physician of the complainants, the complainants agreed to shift the patient to OP No.1. It is pertinent to mention over here that there was no history of any heart problem of the patient. Moreover, the patient was neither suffering from diabetes nor blood pressure. At about 5:00 pm, Dr. Vikram at OP No.3 contacted OP No.2 over mobile phone and apprised him about condition of the patient. It was Sunday on that day and OP No.2 asked Dr. Vikram to send the patient at his hospital i.e. OP No.1. Thereafter the patient was discharged from OP No.3 and was shifted to OP No.1 on an ambulance sent by OP No.1. The patient himself got into the said ambulance while walking. At about 6:00 pm, the complainants arrived at OP No.1. The complainant no.2 paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to OP No.1 at the time of admission. The patient was taken to first floor and admitted to ICCU situate over there. There the staff of OP No.1 conducted ECG test upon the patient. After that, a portable monitor was brought in the ICCU and echo cardiograph test was conducted upon the patient by the staff present over there. During the period the said tests were conducted upon the patient, the complainant no.2 many a times enquired about the OP No.2. To this, the staff present over there replied every time that he would be coming within 15 minutes. In the meantime, the staff present over there carried various other tests of the patient also. Later on, the complainant no. 2 was told by the staff present over there that the patient suffered a heart attack and the heart of the patient was working upto 50% of the capacity. To this, the complainant no.2 told them that he himself was suffering from heart problem and even his own heart was blocked upto the extent of 47%. The complainant no.2 further told that he had himself got examined under echo cardiograph test many-a-times. At the time of the shifting of the patient from OP No.3 to OP No.1, Dr. Vikram told the complainants that the patient was suffering from heart problem and the medical facilities associated with heart problems were not available at OP No.3. Dr. Vikram further told that the OP No.1 was well equipped with the modern equipment, as well as, the specialist doctor to handle every medical condition related with heart problem. On the contrary, the patient remained under the treatment of medical staff, who were untrained to handle any medical emergency related with heart problem. This continued from the time of admission from 6:00 pm onwards upto 7:00 pm. The staff present over there told the complainants that since it was Sunday and the OP No.2 was available only on working days. The complainants were further told that OP No.2 had gone to Ludhiana along with his wife to attend some family function. The staff present over there kept on saying that the OP No.2 would shortly be reaching Jalandhar. All the events which occurred during the period the patient remained with OP No.1, completely shattered the complainants. This was so because the complainants brought the patient at OP No.1 on the specific assurance of OP No.2 be that the patient would be given the requisite medical treatment under his supervision at the earliest. On the contrary, the OP No.2, who was the heart specialist, was yet to reach at OP No.1 even after lapse of more than one hour. So the patient remained under the treatment of hospital staff, who were un-qualified to handle medical emergency associated with heart attack/problem. Since the complainants were continuously asking the staff at OP No.1 as to when the OP No.2 would be reaching to attend the patient, the staff of present over there rudely told the complainants to shift the patient to some other hospital. The complainant no.2 got angry and asked why the patient was admitted by them if the OP No.2 was not available to give emergency treatment to the patient. Further the complainant no.2 told that in case the OP No.2 was not available then why they were made to wait for more than one hour without any specialist medical treatment to the patient. Afterwards the complainants made up their mind to shift the patient to another heart specialty hospital namely Shree Ram Cardiac Centre, Joshi Hospital, Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar. The complainants requested the staff present over there to arrange for an ambulance so that the patient could be shifted to Shree Ram Cardiac Centre. To this, the staff present over there rudely told that the driver of the ambulance was not available for the reason that it was Sunday. Anyhow, the complainant no.2 arranged for an ambulance himself. At about 7:10 pm the ambulance reached at OP No.1. The patient was carelessly thrown in the ambulance by the staff belonging to OP No.1. The complainant no.1 insisted on sitting along with the patient. To this, the staff present over there resisted and some heated arguments were exchanged on the said issue. On the insistence of the staff, the complainant no.1 was made to sit along with the driver on the front seat. While two staff members from OP No.1 accompanied the patient in the ambulance. The OP No.1 was not having oxygen cylinder in the ambulance. The ambulance arrived at Shree Ram Cardiac Centre within 5 to 10 minutes while the complainant no.2 was following the ambulance on his private vehicle. After reaching at Shree Cardiac Centre, the two Staff members of OP No.1 brought out the patient on the stretcher, put the stretcher along with the patient on the ground at the gate of said hospital and hurriedly whisked away. The moment the patient was taken in control and examined by the staff of the Shree Ram Cardiac Centre, it was revealed by them that the patient was brought dead. Afterwards, the complainant no.2 filed complaint against the OP No.2 with the police for causing death of the patient due to criminal negligence for not giving requisite medical treatment. On the said complaint, CMO/Civil Surgeon also appointed medical board to look into the negligence of OP No.2. In its findings the medical board has infact held the OP No.2 guilty of negligence. The complainant no.2 procured copy of all the proceedings conducted before the medical board under RTI Act. The complainant no.2 was flabbergasted to find in those proceedings that the OP No.2 has mis-stated in the proceeding before the medical board to the respect that the patient was given treatment by Dr. Vandana MBBS at OP No.1 and the same is patently false. In fact the complainants could find the said doctor present during the treatment of the patient at OP No.1. Moreover, OP No.2 has concealed before the said medical board to the respect that Dr. Vandana was in fact his wife, who accompanied him to Ludhiana during the period the patient was remained admitted at OP No.1. The echo cardiograph test can only be conducted/performed by a specialist doctor. The medical board, though, took on record all the treatment record provided by OPs No.1 & 2, deliberately overlooked the point that when the result of echo cardiograph test was mentioned in those reports, then who conducted the said test in absence of OP No.2. This clearly shows that the patient was given treatment in absence of the heart specialist i.e. the OP No.2 and the same resulted in untimely death of the patient. Had the patient been provided with medical treatment under the supervision of some heart specialist, his life would have certainly been saved. The act of OPs No.1 and 2 has caused tremendous mental harassment to the complainants and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from 12-11-2017 till its realization and further OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental harassment to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.33,000/- towards legal expenses for pursuing the present complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed its joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complaint against the answering OPs No.1 and 2 is not legally maintainable. The complainants filed the complaint which is wrong and there is no negligence of services on the part of OPs No.1 and 2. The OP No.2 was not even physically present in Cardionova institute on 12.11.2017, at 7:40 PM. It is further averred that the complainant filed the complaint is false to the knowledge of the complainant. It is further averred that the complainants have no cause to file the complaint against the OPs No.1 and 2, the same deserves to be dismissed with special costs. It is further averred that the complainants have filed the complaint, while suppressing the material facts before this Forum, did not disclose the true averments in the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Consumer Forum. The averments of the complaint filed by the complainant are self contradictory, contrary to the statement made by the complainant during the enquiry proceedings before the police authorities. It is further averred that the complainants have filed the complaint just to cause an undue harassment in order to extract money from the answering OPs No.1 & 2. The answering OPs No.1 & 2 shall claim damages from the complainant for causing undue harassment to the answering OPs No.1 and 2. The complainants have no right to drag the answering OPs No.1 and 2 in the litigation. It is further averred that the answering OP No.2 did not give any medical treatment to husband of the complainant no.1 as the answering OP No.2 was not in Jalandhar and this fact was conveyed to OP No.3 that the OP No.2 has gone to Ludhiana, is not available in the hospital. The complainant and OP No.3 are conniving with each other filed the present complaint with a view to extract money from the OPs No.1 and 2. The complainant has stated before the police inquiry that Raghbir Singh was not well three days before 12.11.2017, but in the complaint, a contradictory statement has been made, there is no mentioned from whom the medical treatment was given to Raghbir Singh on 10.11.2017, 11.11.2017. The complainants claimed that the opposite party no.3 was family physician of Raghbir Singh but did not disclose what medical treatment was given by OP No.3 to Raghbir Singh on 10.11.2017 and 11.12.2017. It is further averred that the hospital of the answering OPs No.1 and 2 is duly insured with the insurance company namely i.e. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Agent Broker Apex Insurance. It is further averred that before lodging the complaint, there was a complaint filed by the complainants before the Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat under Public Utility Services, Jalandhar, that complaint is dismissed as withdrawn by the complainants. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainants have concealed the facts, there is no cause of action against the answering OPs No.1 and 2. The answering OPs No.1 and 2 have been unnecessarily impleaded as party in the present complaint. It is further averred that the complaint deserves to be dismissed as there is medical board opinion, which has not been even discussed by the complainant. Dr. Nitish Garg respondent/OP No.2 was not at fault, no treatment was given by him. So, therefore, there is no lack of service on his part. As mentioned above, he was away to Ludhiana and he was not even present in the hospital on 12.11.2017 upto 7:40 PM, therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed against the OPs No.1 and 2. On merits, it is admitted that the OP No.2 is heart specialist doctor and it is also admitted that the patient was shifted to Joshi Hospital, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the above noted complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.3 as no relief is claimed against the OP No.3. Thus, the present complaint against the OP No.3 is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the OP No.2 is a heart specialist as well as Director of OP No.1 and it is also admitted that the OP No.3 is hospital who gave the initial treatment to patient and later on referred him to OPs No.1 and 2. It is also admitted that on 12.11.2017, the patient felt some discomfort in the afternoon and the complainant took the patient to Dr. Vikram, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                OP No.4 filed its written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not the consumer of the answering OP and that being so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering OP. It is further averred that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OP. It is further averred that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practices on the part of the answering opposite party and that being so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that without admitting any liability, it is submitted that the answering OP had issued Professional Indemnity 272200/48/2018/16172 to Dr. Nitish Garg Doctor Policy bearing no. of Cardionova Orthonova Multispeciality Hospital. Nakodar Road, Nari Niketen, Jalandhar for the period 02.11.2017 to midnight of 01.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. The answering OP has issued Error and Omission Medical Establishment Insurance Policy bearing no.272200/48/2018/16179 for the period 02.11.2017 to 01.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- subject to terms and conditions of policy of Insurance. The complainant has filed complaint against Cardionova Institute of Medical Sciences, which is not the insured of the answering OP. However, Dr. Nitish Garg and Cardinova Orthonova Multispeciality Hospital Nakodar Road, Jalandhar are the insured of the OP. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

5.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

6.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 and OP No.3 very minutely.

8.                The Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is medical and criminal negligence on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2. He has submitted that the complainant felt some discomforts on 12.11.2017 and he was taken to Vikram Hospital, their family doctor, where Dr. Vikram opined that there is some heart problem and he contacted OP No.2 and advised the complainant to shift the patient to OP No.1. On his advice, the patient was shifted to OP No.1 at 06:00 pm. The doctor was not in the hospital and the complainants were told that the doctor has gone to Ludhiana with his wife and he will be reaching the hospital very shortly, but the doctor did not reach. The staff attended the patient and unnecessarily kept them waiting for doctor. ECG was also done by the staff. ECHO Cardiograph test was conducted upon the patient by the staff present over there. Many other tests were also got conducted. He has further submitted that since the doctor was not available, therefore, they decided to shift the patient to Shri Ram Cardiac Centre, Joshi Hospital and asked the staff to arrange for ambulance, but the staff refused and it was arranged by the complainant himself. The patient was carelessly thrown in the ambulance by the staff and they misbehaved with the complainants. When the patient was taken to the hospital and checked by the hospital authorities, it was revealed that the patient was brought dead. The OPs No.1 and 2 did not take care of the patient and despite the fact that the doctor was not available there, kept the patient and the complainants waiting for the doctor. Due to this reason the treatment was delayed and the patient i.e. the father of complainant No.2 and husband of the complainant No.1 died as no proper treatment was given to him. Complaints were filed by the complainants even the Medical Board was also constituted and enquiry was conducted. The OPs No.1 and 2 despite knowing that the ECHO cardiographic test can be conducted only by the specialist allowed the staff to conduct the ECHO cardiographic test and this amounts to criminal negligence on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2. These acts of the OPs No.1 and 2 are the violation of the guidelines and notification of Medical Council of India for professional conduct.

9.                The Ld.Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 submitted that there is no criminal or medical negligence nor any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2. It has been alleged that the OP No.2 is heart specialist doctor. He never gave any medical treatment to the husband of the complainant No.1 as admittedly he was not in Jalandhar at the time when the husband of the complainant No.1 was brought to the hospital. He has submitted that the OP No.3 was knowing this fact that the OP No.2 has gone to Ludhiana. The complainants themselves have stated that the deceased was not well for the last three days before 12.11.2017, but in the complaint nothing has been mentioned and contradictory statement has been given by the complainants. The complainants have nowhere alleged that any treatment was given by the OP No.2. He has referred the medical board’s opinion also, wherein it has nowhere been mentioned that OP No.2 Dr. Nitish Garg was at fault and it has been opined by the Board that no treatment was ever given by the OP No.2. Once no treatment was given, there can be no negligence on the part of the OP No.2. He has further submitted that there is no portable monitor as alleged by the complainant and there is complete monitor with OPs No.1 and 2 for conducting the ECHO cardiographic test. Best possible treatment was given by the staff and Dr. Vandana, who is, well experienced doctor. Patient was discharged at 07:30pm on the request of the complainant’s only. The complainant has given the wrong statement that there was a mis-behaviour by the staff and no gas cylinder was provided, whereas in the enquiry before Medical Board, the doctor of Shriram Hospital has confirmed that the oxygen cylinder was in ambulance and this fact has been confirmed by Dr. Bharat of Shriram Hospital also. There is no medical negligence. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint.

10.              The OP No.3 has admitted that he is the family physician of the complainant and on 12.11.2017, he examined the patient and found that it was the case of a heart problem. It has been admitted by him that after consulting Dr. Nitish Garg, he advised the complainants to shift the patient to the OP No.2, which is a heart specialty centre working under the supervision of OP No.2. The OP No.3 has alleged that initial treatment was given to him and when his condition became stable, he was discharged and shifted to the hospital OP No.1, in an Ambulance sent by the OP No.1. At the time of going to the Ambulance, the condition of the patient was stable and he got into the Ambulance while walking on his feet. There is no negligence on behalf of the OP No.3. The OP No.3 gave him best initial treatment and there is no medical negligence.

11.              Admitted facts are that the father of the complainant No.2 felt discomfort on 12.11.2017 and he was taken to Vikram Hospital, their family physician. There he was given first aid and on becoming stable, he was referred to hospital OP No.1 on the advice of OP No.2. It is also admitted that the OP No.2 was not in hospital and the patient ie. Raghbir Singh was attended by the wife of the OP No.2. The contention of the complainant is that the wife of the OP No.2 was also not in the hospital and she had gone with the OP No.2 to Ludhiana, but this contention has not been proved by the complainant as no evidence has been led by the complainant to show that the wife of the OP No.2 was not in the hospital and had gone to Ludhiana with OP No.2. It is also admitted that when the father of the complainant was shifted to Joshi Hospital, he was declared brought dead.

12.              The complainant has alleged medical and criminal negligence on the part of the OP No.1 and OP No.2. The definition of Medical Negligence is that ‘Medical negligence occurs when medical care providers fail to fulfill their professional obligations. Every medical provider has a duty of care they owe to patients. If they don’t fulfill that duty it may be considered medical negligence. In some cases, this will give rise to a malpractice claim — but not in all circumstances.’

13.              The Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined the medical negligence in the case, titled as“Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.” in 2005 (6) SCC 1, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

                   “A case of occupational negligence is different from one of      professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of        judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of          a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice           acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be          held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative      course or method of treatment was also available or simply         because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or           resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.”

                   It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as ‘Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others’ that ’the patients by and large are ignorant about the disease or the side or the adverse affect of a medicine. Ordinarily the patients are to be informed about the admitted risk, if any. If some medicine has some adverse affect or some reaction in anticipated, he should be informed thereabout.’

                   So, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, so long as the doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence, meaning thereby that the doctor must be possessed with an adequate qualification and he must be capable of doing the treatment. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not proof of negligence.

14.              Now the point is to be seen is as to whether there is any medical negligence or criminal negligence on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2 or not as the complainant has nowhere alleged the medical negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP No.3. Perusal of Ex.OP-5 shows that the father of the complainant No.2 was brought to Vikram Hospital on 12.11.2017 and he was having history of discomfort chest pain and fever for last three days. His BP was 70-50, pulse was 80 and temperature was 99 when he was brought to OP No.3. He was given the necessary initial treatment and oxygen was also provided. At 05:00 pm, the patient was comfortable. The doctor had a telephonic consultation with Dr. Nitish Garg, OP No.2 and at 05:30 pm, the patient was shifted to ambulance to the hospital/OP No.1. As per medical record of the hospital of OP No.3, the patient was well oriented, conscious and stable. His pulse and BP was also stable, meaning thereby that when he was taken to the hospital of OP No.3, he was already having discomfort and chest pain for the last three days and after spending three days at home, he contacted the OP No.3. This fact has been admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint. Thereafter, he was admitted to the hospital of OP No.2. Ex.OP-3 shows that when he was brought to the hospital OP No.1, the wife of the deceased Raghbir Singh gave statement in OP No.1 that ‘the deceased Raghbir Singh Walia is having discomfort and chest problem for the last three days and they have brought him to the Cardionova Hospital, where the ECG was conducted and it was informed to them that he had suffered major heart attack. They gave consent that they are ready to get the treatment from this hospital only and they are ready to bear all the expenses.’ This statement itself proves that the Patient relatives were informed about the risk. The complainant has alleged that the ECHO was done by the staff of the hospital when they were not qualified for the same. He has relied upon the prescription produced on record which shows that there is a mention of the word ‘ECHO’ and it has been alleged that this was recommended by the doctor. Perusal of this prescription, nowhere shows that it was ever recommended by the doctor or it was ever conducted by any staff member or anybody else in the hospital OP No.1. Even the details of the charges taken by the OP No.1 shows that the amount of Rs.500/- was charged for ECG, which was conducted, showing the abnormal ECG. Except that no charges for ECHO were ever taken by the OP No.1. Paramjit Kaur, the wife of the deceased gave consent at 06:00 pm to the doctor that they understand the serious condition of the patient and have been explained regarding any sudden unexpected happening during the course of treatment in the hospital, but inspite of that they want to get treatment from the hospital of OP No.1. The entire record has been produced on judicial file showing that all the investigations were done by the doctor present there. The time to time history on the bed head ticket of the patient has also been produced, wherein it has been mentioned that at 07:10 pm, the patient’s relatives intended to shift the patient to other hospital and the risk and prognosis was explained. On 12.11.2017 at 07:30 pm, the patient was shifted to ambulance on BiPAP and oxygen, on request of the relatives, and it has specifically been mentioned in the bed head ticket that there is no increase in the urine output.

15.              The complainant moved the complaints to the police and civil surgeon also. The medical board was constituted and the statements of the complainant, the doctors and all the OPs were recorded and even the statements of doctors from the Sriram Cardiac Joshi Hospital were recorded. The opinion of the doctors of medical board is as:- ‘there is no definite negligence on the part of any single person and it is the multi factorer. It has been mentioned that the patient was sick for the last three days.’ Dr. Bharat gave statement that the patient was shifted to Shree Ram Joshi Hospital in the ambulance of the OP No.1 with all the equipments and on reaching the Joshi Hospital, considering the seriousness of the patient, he was taken care of and examined in the ambulance itself. Since, there was no respiration, therefore, all the equipments i.e. the life support system was removed when he was brought in the emergency of the Joshi Hospital, where he was connected with the monitor, but thereafter he was declared brought dead. From the statement of Dr. Bharat, Medical Assistant of Shriram Cardiac Centre, it is proved that when the deceased was shifted to  Shree Ram Cardiac Centre, he was in the ambulance of OP No.1 with all the support system and staff. The contention of the complainant that the ambulance was hired by them, is proved to be wrong from the statement of Dr. Bharat, given before the Medical Board. The contention of the complainant is also proved to be wrong to the effect when he has stated that the staff of OP No.1 misbehaved with the complainants and nobody accompanied them to the Joshi Hospital and they were sent without any support system, but Dr. Bharat has categorically stated that the deceased was brought with all the support system, oxygen and BiPAP, meaning thereby that all the required precautions were taken by doctor available in the hospital of OP No.2. The complainant has not produced on record opinion of any other doctor to the effect that the patient was treated negligently by the staff or by the OP No.2. OP No.2 never treated the complainant. OP No.3 immediately finding the problem of heart gave initial treatment made him stable and shifted the patient/deceased to the hospital, where he could get the best treatment from the heart specialist doctor. So, there is no lack of care, no negligence on part of any of the doctor. The doctors have done their best what they could have done at the relevant time. They had explained everything to the relatives of the deceased, the emergency and the condition of the patient. It has been proved that the fault is of the complainants themselves as they have kept the patient at home for three days, when he was having chest problem, without any medication, which has proved fatal. The complainant has nowhere alleged any deficiency or medical negligence on the part of OP No.3 nor any medical negligence of OP No.3 has been proved. Similarly, from all angles the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and medical or criminal negligence on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2 and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

16.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

31.05.2024         Member                          Member              President