BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.400 of 2014

Date of Instt. 14.11.2014

Date of Decision : 05/10/2016

Dalbir Singh, aged about 71 years son of Shri Boor Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Dorangla, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

..........Complainant.......

Versus

Dr.Balraj Gupta, Owner/Incharge of Rattan Multispecialty Hospital, also known as Hope Heart Care, 280, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar City.

.........Opposite Party.......

Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Surjeet Singh Advocate, Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. V.K.Singla, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Party

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the Opposite Party with the submissions that he is a Heart Patient and wanted treatment. He approached the Opposite Party, who told the Complainant that there was a package of Heart Treatment which costs Rs.75,000/- including room charges, diet and medicines etc and assured the Complainant that his blocked Artery shall be opened to put it on normal function and in case, if needed, stent shall be installed in the Artery at half rate. On the assurance of the Opposite Party, the Complainant arranged money and deposited Rs.75,000/- with the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not issue any receipt and get himself admitted in the Opposite Party Hospital in the month of April, 2014 for treatment. The Complainant remained admitted in the Hospital of the Opposite Party for about 22 days and the Complainant was discharged with assurance that he had been properly cured. The Complainant went to his Village and after 4-5 days, he felt angina pain and again went to the Opposite Party Hospital for check up, where angiography of the Complainant was done. As per report, one Artery of the Complainant was 100% blocked i.e.

LAD Type III Vessel Proximal 100% stenosis.

LCx Non dominate Sistal 70% block.

OMI diffuse disease 60 %.

RCA Dominant vessel normal

PDA 50% block.

The Opposite Party prescribed to install the stent in the blocked artery of the Complainant. As per prescription and demand made by the Opposite Party, the Complainant deposited Rs.90,000/- with the Opposite Party Hospital as expenses of stent. The Opposite Party tried to install the stent in the artery of the Complainant, but could not do so as the artery was totally blocked i.e. 100% damaged. The Complainant faced great pains and trouble caused by the Opposite Party during the process of installation of the stent which could not be installed. As the Opposite Party failed to install stent in the artery of the Complainant, the Complainant insisted for refund of amount of Rs.90,000/-. After great persuasions, the Opposite Party refunded a sum of Rs.80,000/- only to the Complainant. The Complainant further submitted that he purchased all the medicines from his own pocket and the Opposite Party failed to keep up his promise to bear all the expenses within the amount of package. The Opposite Party could not cure the Complainant and discharged him from the Hospital on the pretext that the Opposite Party was unable to do any thing more for the Complainant as his artery was completely blocked and stent could not be installed in it. Thereafter, the Complainant approached Tagore Hospital, Banda Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar. The Doctor at Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar gave a report which is totally different from the report/prescription given by the Opposite Party during the medical check up/treatment of the Complainant in Hospital of the Opposite Party. The Complainant spent about 2.5 lakhs to 3 lakhs on package, expenses of stent, medicines, tests, special diet etc., but the Opposite Party failed to provide proper medical treatment to the Complainant. The Complainant submitted that it was within the knowledge of the Opposite Party from very inception of the treatment /tests that the stent could not be installed due to complete damage of artery, but in order to extort money, the Opposite Party allured the Complainant and cheated him, but failed to provide proper treatment to the Complainant, so the Opposite Party was totally negligent and deficient in providing medical services to the Complainant as a result of which, the Complainant suffered mental as well as physical pains. Therefore, the Complainant prayed for compensation on account of damages to the tune of Rs.5 Lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum, but the Opposite Party did not pay anything to the Complainant despite services of legal notices dated 14.10.2014 calling upon the Opposite Party to pay damages, rather the Opposite party refused to accept the delivery of the notice and the Envelope containing the notice received back by the Complainant which was placed on record. The Complainant also prayed for cost of litigation from the Opposite Party.

2. Notice was given to the Opposite Party who appeared through Counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing the true and material facts. The complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties because Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) treated the Complainant and as such, he was necessary party, but he has not been impleaded in this complaint, rather the Opposite Party has been un-necessarily and illegally dragged in this litigation. The Complainant is not a Consumer qua the Opposite Party. On merits, the Opposite Party submitted that the Opposite party Hospital is multispecialty hospital, the qualified doctors of different specialties deal with the related problems of the concerned patient and only the concerned dealing/doctor is responsible for his acts and the Opposite Party is providing only nursing facilities and hospital infrastructure for the patients treated by doctors with other specialties. Thus the Opposite Party is not in any manner responsible for the treatment given by other doctor i.e. Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) having specialty in this field. The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant is a heart patient and approached the Opposite Party for treatment. Resultantly, the Complainant was examined and tests were conducted, but it was made clear to the Complainant that the treatment prescribed for the Complainant was OPD procedure requiring regular visits. However, the Complainant himself requested the Opposite Party that since the Complainant is from Gurdaspur and it would be difficult for him to come from Gurdaspur, he be provided accommodation in the Hospital for getting his prescribed treatment. So the Opposite Party provided accommodation to the Complainant in the Hospital as a matter of courtesy, though it was not included in the package for treatment which was prescribed to the Complainant. The Opposite Party denied that the package of heart patient was Rs.75,000/- including room charges, diet, medicines etc. The Opposite Party further denied that they assured the Complainant that his blocked artery shall be opened to put it on normal function. The package with regard to the treatment prescribed to the Complainant is of Rs.85,000/- which does not include any room charges, diet and medicines etc. The Complainant was also informed that the prescribed treatment may prevent requirement of invasive treatments like stenting and bye-pass surgery and in case stenting is still required, the Complainant will have to consult the concerned doctor for the said purpose at the relevant time. However, the Complainant requested for some concession in the package and also admitted that in case stenting is required, the Opposite Party should provide concession to the Complainant. The Complainant was given a discount of Rs.10,000/- in the package as a matter of courtesy. The Opposite Party denied that the Complainant deposited Rs.75,000/- as package charges and was admitted in the Opposite Party Hospital. Rather the Complainant deposited only Rs.40,000/- by way of cheque and the treatment was started, so question of issuing any receipt of Rs.75,000/- does not arise at all, the package amount did not include any accommodation, expenses for medicines, diet etc. However the accommodation was provided to the Complainant as a matter of courtesy. The Complainant was given prescribed treatment as per the package to the satisfaction of the complainant and he felt fully satisfied with the treatment. The Opposite Party submitted that there was no question of giving any assurance that Complainant had been properly cured and that he was all right to lead a normal life, but the Complainant was given a proper treatment as per the package. The Opposite Party further denied for want of knowledge that after 4-5 days, the Complainant felt angina pain. The Opposite Party denied that he conducted any Angiography of the Complainant. Rather the Complainant was suggested to consult super specialist in cardiology and the Complainant consulted Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) & thereafter the Complainant was treated by the said doctor and the Opposite Party provided only nursing and infrastructure facility. So it is a matter between the Complainant and Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology). The Complainant had already availed the prescribed treatment as per the package as stated above. Therefore, the Opposite Party has no concern with the alleged Angiography Report or with the treatment given to the Complainant by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology). The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant deposited Rs.90,000/- in the Opposite Parties Hospital, but he was treated by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology), after the package was fully availed by the Complainant The Opposite Party never tried to install the stent in the artery of the Complainant. The Opposite Party denied that the Complainant faced great pains and trouble caused by the Opposite Party during the process of installation of stent, which could not be installed. The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant was refunded a sum of Rs.80,000/- and it was made clear to the Complainant that a balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was towards nursing and infrastructural facilities provided by the Opposite Party during the course of treatment given by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) in the Opposite Party Hospital. The Complainant did not avail any treatment from the Opposite Party after availing the package, the averments of the Complainant that the Opposite Party failed to install the stent in the artery of the Complainant is totally wrong and baseless as the Opposite Party was not involved in providing the said treatment. The plea regarding the purchase of medicines, etc is also a matter between the Complainant and Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology), the said treatment has no concern with the package already availed by the Complainant from the Opposite Party prior to his treatment by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology). The Opposite Party further denied that the Complainant was discharged from Hospital by the Opposite Party on the pretext that he was unable to do any thing more for the Complainant as the artery of the Complainant was completely blocked and the stent could not be installed. The Opposite Party never conducted any Angiography nor made any effort/treatment, but it was given by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) to the Complainant for installation of stent, if any, so the question of giving different report by the Opposite Party does not arise at all. The Opposite Party further denied that the Complainant spent Rs.2.5 lakhs to 3 Lakhs on his treatment. The Opposite Party submitted that the averment of the Complainant that after tests conducted on the complainant, it was within the knowledge of the Opposite Party that the stent could not be stalled due to complete damage of artery, but in order to extort money, the Opposite Party entrapped the Complainant. In this case, the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant did not suffer any mental pain and physical pain, so question does not arise that there was any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party qua the Complainant. No legal notice was received or ever served upon the Opposite Party by the Complainant. The complaint is without merits and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence Affidavit Ex.OP-A and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it stands fully proved that the Complainant was suffering from heart ailment and he approached the Opposite Party for treatment. The Opposite Party told the Complainant regarding package of heart treatment on ECP machine to open the blocked artery. This package was of Rs.85,000/- , it did not include any room charges, diet, medicines etc and the Complainant was told that the prescribed treatment prevent requirement of invasive treatment like stenting and bye-pass surgery and in case stent is still required, the Complainant will have to consult the Concerned Doctor for the said purpose. However, the Complainant requested for some concession in the package and also requested that in case, stent is still required, then the Opposite Party should give concession to the Complainant. So the Complainant was given dis-count of Rs.10,000/- in the package. The Complainant further requested that since he belongs to District Gurdaspur, it would be difficult for him to commute from Gurdaspur daily and he be provided accommodation in the Opposite Party Hospital for getting his prescribed treatment, because the treatment prescribed for the Complainant for OPD procedure requires regular visits daily. Keeping in view the request of the Complainant, he was also provided accommodation in the Hospital as a matter of courtesy free of charge. The Complainant proved on record payment of Rs.60,000/- only to the Opposite Party regarding the aforesaid package as per Statement of Account of the Bank of the Complainant Ex.C-6. The Complainant was given prescribed treatment as per package by the Opposite Party. The Complainant remained in the Opposite Party Hospital for about 22 days and nothing was charged from the Complainant by the Opposite Party for accommodation provided to the complainant in the aforesaid period and the Complainant went to his home in satisfactory condition after receiving the treatment from the Opposite Party as per package. However after some time, the Complainant came to the Opposite Party Hospital with heart ailment and the Complainant consulted Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology). The Coronary Angiography of the Complainant was conducted by said Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) on 02.06.2014 & the Report Ex.C-1. The Complainant was treated by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) and Opposite Party provided nursing and Infrastructural facilities for the treatment of the Complainant in the Opposite Party Hospital. As per this Angiography report Ex.C-1, the Complainant was LAD Type III Vessel Proximal 100% stenosis.

LCx Non dominate Sistal 70% block.

OMI diffuse disease 60 %.

PDA 50% block and he was advised Revascularisation. Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) advised the Complainant for stenting and on advice of Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology), the Complainant deposited Rs.90,00/- in the Opposite Party Hospital as a cost for the purchase of stent. This treatment of the Complainant on 02.04.2014 and afterward has nothing to do with the package with the Opposite Party which was fully availed by the Complainant and the treatment of the Complainant by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) is an afterward ailment of the Complainant. The said Doctor might have tried to install the stent in the blocked artery i.e LAD of the Complainant which was 100% stenosis as per Report Ex.C-1, but Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) did not install the stent in the LAD of the Complainant. The Complainant was treated orally. Therefore, the Complainant prayed for refund of Rs.90,000/- which he has deposited with the Opposite Party for purchase of stent. Resultantly, the Opposite Party refunded a sum of Rs.80,000/- only and did not refund the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- on the ground that this was utilized as expenses towards nursing and infrastructural facilities provided by the Opposite Party during the course of treatment given by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) to the complainant in the Opposite Party Hospital. But the Opposite Party could not produce any record to prove any nursing and infrastructural facilities given to the complainant during his treatment by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) nor the Opposite Party could produce any document in form of admission and discharge Certificate of the Complainant to prove that the Complainant was admitted in the Opposite Party Hospital on 02.06.2014 or afterward i.e. after conducting of Angiography of the Complainant, report of which dated 02.06.2014 is Ex.C-1. So the Opposite Party was not justified in not refunding the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant. The Complainant also did not produce any treatment record of Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) to prove that whether the Complainant remained admitted in the Opposite Party Hospital and he was treated by the said Cardiologist in the Opposite Party Hospital negligently or with carelessness. The Complainant also could not produce any evidence that later on he got treatment for his heart ailment in other hospital after treatment of Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology). The Opposite Party Authorities refused to install the stent in the blocked artery of the Complainant. All this shows that the Complainant either did not get medical treatment from Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) properly that is why the Complainant could not produce his treatment record or Treatment Certificate from said Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) or the Complainant was treated by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) orally with medicines and he was cured for his ailment by the said Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology), the Complainant has also not made said Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) as party to the present complainant nor the Complainant has filed any Affidavit of said Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) nor produced his medical treatment regarding from Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology). Thereafter the Complainant went home in stable condition and thereafter he got treatment from Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar on 11.09.2014 i.e. after lapse of period of more than 3-4 months as per prescription slip of Dr.Nitish Garg of Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar as Ex.C-2 who also provided only oral medical treatment in the form of medicines. But the Complainant could not produce any further medical treatment record of Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar to prove that he spent how much amount on medical treatment nor the Complainant could produce any report from any medical expert to prove that the Complainant was not properly treated in the Opposite Party Hospital by the Opposite Party Authorities and the Complainant also could not produce any evidence to prove his averment that he spent about Rs.2.5 to 3 Lakhs on his treatment at the Opposite Party Hospital.. No Bill, no Prescription Slip, Bill of medicines or any other treatment record has been produced by the Complainant on record to prove that he spent Rs.2.5 to 3 lakhs as alleged by the Complainant.

7. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the Opposite Party has charged Rs.90,000/- from the Complainant for installation of stent in the blocked artery of the complainant which could not be put in the blocked artery of the Complainant. Therefore, the Opposite Party was liable to refund the entire amount i.e. Rs.90,000/- deposited by the Complainant wit the Opposite party for installation of stent in blocked artery of the Complainant, but the Opposite Party has refunded only Rs.80,000/- and did not refund balance amount of Rs.10,000/- on the ground that the Opposite Party provided nursing and infrastructural facilities during the course of treatment of the Complainant by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) in the Opposite Party Hospital, but the Opposite Party could not produce any record to prove that they provided any nursing and infrastructural facilities during the course of treatment of the complainant by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) in the Opposite Party Hospital. Rather the Opposite Party failed to produce any medical treatment record of the complainant by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) in the Opposite Party Hospital. So the Opposite Party was certainly deficient in service towards the complainant for not refunding balance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant and the Complainant was forced to file the present complaint. As such, we hold that the Opposite Party is liable to refund this balance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant along with compensation.

However the Complainant could not produce any record regarding any medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party treatment of the complainant in the Opposite Party Hospital with regard to the package of Rs.75,000/- and thereafter in the treatment of the Complainant by Dr.Prateek Singh, MD, DM (Cardiology) at Opposite Party Hospital. Resultantly, we partly allow this complaint with cost and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and also to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.3000/- to the Complainant. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated (Parminder Sharma) (Bhupinder Singh)

05.10.2016 Member President