BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.8 of 2011

Date of Institution: 03-01-2011

Date of Decision: 27-05-2015  

Mandeep Singh, son of S.Tarlok Singh, resident of House No. 711, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Kot Khalsa, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Dr.Shashi Nayyar owner/ Incharge, Nayyar Institute of Heart and Super Speciality Hospital, Dasondha Singh Road, Amritsar.
2. Dr.Parveen Kumar of Nayyar Hospital, Dasondha Singh Road, Amritsar.
3. Director, Oxford Hospital, Jalandhar.
4. Dr.Amar Nath Ghosh of Oxford Hospital, Jalandhar.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11, 12 & 13  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. M.S.Dhillon, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Vipan Bhasin, Advocate.

              For Opposite Parties No.2 to 4: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Mandeep Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant  took his father Tarlok Singh for check up to Dr.Rohit Kapoor, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar and he referred the father of the complainant to Nayyar Institute of Heart and Super Speciality Hospital, Dasondha Singh Road, Amritsar (in short ‘Nayyar Hospital’), where angiography was done and the complainant was apprised by the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 that there is a blockage of 90% in the heart of the father of the complainant without any other problem. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 advised the complainant to get bye-pass surgery of his father. The complainant admitted his father  with Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital  and the Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1,90,000/- for this act. The complainant showed the card of BGS (Bhai Ghanaiya Scheme) of his father to Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital and told that they will fill the Assessment Form to get reply from BGS Society and took signatures of the father of the complainant on the blank assessment form and discharged him and  told the complainant to come on Monday with his  father. The complainant enquired from the hospital on Monday regarding the reply, but the hospital authorities apprised the complainant that still no reply is received and directed the complainant to come tomorrow. The complainant took his father to hospital on next day, till then, reply was received from BGS Society, mentioning therein, that Rs.1,60,000/- is to be paid by the Society as Insurance and the Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital asked the father of the complainant to give a cheque of Rs.30,000/- as remaining payment and the father of the complainant gave a cheque of Rs.30,000/- to Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital for bye-pass surgery. Then the complainant asked Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital to conduct bye-pass surgery of his father, but the Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital got conducted  stenting on the person of father of the complainant instead of bye-pass surgery from Opposite Party No.2, who conducted stenting in such a rash and negligent manner which caused a severe leakage in the wall of heart, but the doctors did not disclose this fact to the complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 discharged the father of the complainant, even after the deterioration of his health and the complainant and his father came back at home, but there was no relief to the father of the complainant and on 5.1.2009, the complainant again took his father to the hospital and the Opposite Party No.2 admitted his father in the hospital and on the next day i.e. on 6.1.2009 the condition of the father of the complainant became critical and he was put on IABVP Machine, as the blood pressure came down due to the wall-leakage of heart and all the doctors were confused, but even  then, the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not disclose this fact to the complainant. Doctor Pawan Kumar (Anaesthesia) asked the complainant to shift his father in some other hospital as there was no surgeon in the hospital to conduct bye-pass surgery and on his  advice, the complainant shifted his father in the hospital of Opposite Parties  No.3 and  4 i.e. Oxford Hospital, Jalandhar in ambulance alongwith machines at about 10.00 pm on 6.1.2009 and on the next day, the Opposite Party No.4 did echo-cardiography and apprised the complainant that there is a severe wall-leakage of heart and in surgery, there is risk of death on table. He asked the complainant to bring history-sheet of the patient alongwith CD. The complainant on the next date, came at Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 to collect the CD and history-sheet. Opposite Party No.1 got prepared the history sheet of the father of the complainant from Dr.Gurbinder Singh and after checking it, handed over to the complainant. On the same day, the complainant went back at Jalandhar and handed over the CD alongwith history sheet to the Opposite Party No.4. The complainant asked the Opposite Party No.4, whether Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 mentioned in the history sheet regarding the severe-wall-leakage of heart (MR-severe), but he said ‘no’. The concealment  of this fact itself shows the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2. Opposite Party No.4 said that without the stability of the patient, surgery can not be conducted as the blood pressure is going down even after the administration of medicines in large quantity. Ultimately, on 12.1.2009 father of the complainant died due to the non controlling of the deceased blood pressure due to the severe-wall-leakage caused by Opposite Party No.2 during stenting. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 with their common intention, in order to grab money from the complainant and his father despite the non-availability of the surgeon in their hospital to conduct bye-pass surgery on the person of the father of the complainant, admitted the father of the complainant in their hospital and later on, non disclosing of the fact of severe wall leakage in the history sheet and further non providing of medical record to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties  to pay compensation of Rs.19 lacs for causing untimely death of father of the complainant due to negligence and carelessness act on their part.  Litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that patient Tarlok Singh   69 years old male was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital on 26.12.2008 at about 10.30 AM with complaints of Chest Pain, Perspiration and Breathlessness. The history of the patient revealed that he had been getting chest pain on exertion for  last three months. In the hospital, he was treated by a team of qualified doctors as per prescribed standards with due information and permission from his attendants. Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital is fully equipped and an established and approved centre for the treatment of such patients. The ECG of the patient was done which showed changes consistent with heart attack.  His other tests regarding heart attack were also positive. Echo Cardiography was done and the results were consistent with heart attack. On the same day, angiography  of the patient was done which showed blockage in three blood vessels. The patient was advised bye-pass surgery and the option of angioplasty was also given, but he attendants of the patient refused. The next of kin of the patient was explained everything, but they were not prepared either for bye-pass surgery or for angioplasty. They rather requested for discharge of the patient and on their request the patient was discharged on 26.12.2008 itself. The patient was covered under Punjab Government Bhai Ghanaya Scheme. The authorised amount in the policy of the patient was Rs.1,59,050/- whereas the outstanding amount towards discharge of hospital bill as Rs.2,31,772/-. Thus, after adjusting the sanctioned amount a balance of Rs.72,722/- was due from the patient to the hospital. The patient gave a cheque of Rs.30,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital which could not be encashed due to insufficiency of funds in the account of drawer. The cheque as such is lying with the Opposite Party No.1 and still a sum of Rs.72,722/- is due from patient/ complainant to the Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital. This complaint has been filed to avoid/ evade payment.  On 30.12.2008 the patient again presented as an emergency with severe chest pain and perspiration with blurring vision.  Patient was diagnosed as MI Hyper Acute Phase and conservation treatment was started. The patient had come at 2.00 PM and at the time of admission, his heart rate was only 36 per minute. His BP was falling. He was given appropriate medical treatment. Because of persistent chest pain, fall in BP and in view of his heart rate and deteriorating condition, patient had to be put on Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) support and costly injections for thinning of blood. After explaining risk and  grave prognosis and with due consent from the relatives, patient was  taken for emergency revascularisation/ stenting and rescue angioplasty was done successfully. Patient again developed ventricular fibrillation (very high heart rate) in ICCU. DC shocks were given and CPR (Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) was done and patient placed on ventilator and temporary pacemaker support. Patient was extuvated and was put off ventilator.  On 31.12.2008 patient was  seen by Dr.Rakesh Sudun, Cardio Thorasic Surgeon and according to him, in that condition patient was not fit for surgery. Thus, the patient was successfully rescued ad gradually taken off ventilator, IABP ad TPI support by 2^nd January, 2009. As the patient was on blood thinning injections, he was still not fit for surgery. On 3^rd January, 2009 patient was discharged in stable condition on request of the family with advice for readmission after stopping the blood thinning medication (five days) for bye-pass surgery. Patient was again re-admitted as an emergency on 5^th January, 2009 at 10.00 PM with complaint of acute chest  pain. Patient  was stabilised with conservative  treatment by 2 AM.  (6^th January, 2009). By around 12 Noon, patient’s blood pressure started falling and patient  again had to be put on IABP support. Case was seen by Dr.A.Ghosh from Oxford Hospital, Jalandhar and was advised bye-pass surgery after stabilization at Oxford Hospital Jalandhar. Finally on 6.1.2009 at 10.00 PM after explaining the serious condition of the patient and with their due consent patient was shifted to Oxford Hospital, Jalandhar in their Cardiac Care ambulance with IABP support. Thus all due care and caution was taken for the safety and life of the patient. The stenting of the patient was done as a life saving measure. But it is not done in a rash and negligent manner which allegedly caused a severe ‘leakage’ in the wall of heart. The truth was explained to the next of kin of patient Tarlok Singh   that with repeated heart attack and due to decrease in blood supply to heart, the valves as well as the walls of the heart become weak. As a result there is leakage from the valves. The replying Opposite Party can not comment upon the treatment and condition of the patient after the patient left Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital on 6.1.2009. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite publication, so Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order 10.9.2012 of this Forum.   None appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties  No.3 to 4, so they were also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.2.2011 of this Forum.  
4. Complainant tendered into evidence letter Ex.C1,  his affidavit Ex.C2 alongwith documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.Shashi Nayyar Ex.OP1/1, hospital file Ex.OP1/2, affidavit of Dr.Raman Chawla Ex.OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that Tarlok Singh   father of the complainant approached Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 at Nayyar Hospital, Amritsar on 26.12.2008  where angiography on Tarlok Singh   was done and the complainant was apprised by the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 that there is a blockage of 90% in the heart of Tarlok Singh   father of the complainant. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 advised the complainant to get bye-pass surgery of his father. Tarlok Singh, father of the complainant    was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital  and the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.1,90,000/- for the same. The complainant submitted that Tarlok Singh   was insured under Bhai Ghanaiya Scheme and he showed the card BGS of his father to Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital authorities filled in  Assessment Form to get reply from BGS Society and signatures of the father of the complainant were taken on the said  form. The Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital without assigning  any reason discharged Tarlok Singh   from the Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital and advised to come on Monday so that the reply of BGS society will be received by that time. However, reply from BGS Society received on Tuesday and mentioned that Rs.1,60,000/- is to be paid by BGS Society as insurance.   Father of the complainant was required to deposit the remaining fee of Rs.30,000/- which was deposited by the complainant through cheque. But inspite of that Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital got conducted  only one stenting on the person of father of the complainant instead of bye-pass surgery, from Opposite Party No.2. Complainant alleges that Opposite Party No.2 conducted stenting in such a rash and negligent manner which caused a severe leakage in the wall of heart and Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital discharged father of the complainant from the hospital despite the fact that there was no relief to the father of the complainant. The complainant again took his father to Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital on 5.1.2009. Opposite Party No.2 admitted Tarlok Singh   patient in the hospital on the next day i.e. on 6.1.2009 when the condition of Tarlok Singh  father of the complainant was very critical and he was put on IABVP Machine, as the blood pressure came down due to the wall-leakage of heart and the doctors at Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital became confused. Then Dr. Pawan Kumar of Anaesthesia  asked the complainant to shift his father to some other hospital to conduct bye-pass surgery . On  his  advice, the complainant shifted his father in Opposite Party No.3 hospital at Jalandhar   in ambulance at about 10.00 pm on 6.1.2009 . On the next date, the Opposite Party No.4 did echo-cardiography of Tarlok Singh   who apprised the complainant that the condition of  Tarlok Singh   patient is very critical and in case of surgery there is risk of death on table and asked the complainant to bring complete record alongwith CD of Tarlok Singh  from Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital. On the next day, Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital handed over the history sheet of the father of the complainant  to the complainant alongwith CD which was handed over to Opposite Party No.4 by the complainant. The complainant alleges that Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 concealed the fact of severe-wall-leakage of heart (MR-severe) of Tarlok Singh . Opposite Party No.4 told the complainant   that without the stability of the patient, surgery can not be conducted as the blood pressure is going down even after the administration of medicines. Ultimately, on 12.1.2009 father of the complainant expired at Opposite Party No.3 Hospital. Complainant alleges that Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 fully knowing that no cardiac surgeon is available in their hospital to conduct bye-pass surgery on the person of Tarlok Singh , admitted him in their hospital. They discharged  the father of the complainant fully knowing the fact that the condition of the father of the complainant was very serious and asked the complainant to bring his father when the reply from BGS Society is received in Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital as Tarlok Singh   was insured in BGS Society. Further, Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not conduct the bye-pass surgery of Tarlok Singh, rather they conducted stenting only as a result of which condition of the father of the  complainant became serious/ critical and Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 referred Tarlok Singh   patient to Opposite Party No.3 Hospital at Jalandhar where due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 the condition of Tarlok Singh   became serious. As such, his bye-pass surgery could not be conducted and ultimately, Tarlok Singh expired in Opposite Party No.3 hospital due to negligence in performance of medical treatment by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 at their hospital i.e. Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital. All this amounts to deficiency of service, medical negligence in the treatment of Tarlok Singh   on the part of Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that patient Tarlok Singh   69 years old  was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital on 26.12.2008 at about 10.30 AM with complaints of Chest Pain, Perspiration and Breathlessness. He was treated by a team of qualified doctors with due information and permission from his attendants. ECG of the patient was done which showed  changes consistent with heart attack.  His other tests regarding heart attack were also positive. On the same day, angiography  of the patient was done which showed blockage in three blood vessels. The patient was advised bye-pass surgery and the option of angioplasty was also given, but the attendants of the patient refused. The next of kin of the patient was explained everything, but they were not prepared either for bye-pass surgery or for angioplasty. They requested for discharge of the patient and on their request the patient was discharged on 26.12.2008 itself. The patient was covered under Punjab Government Bhai Ghanaya Scheme. The authorised amount in the policy of the patient was Rs.1,59,050/- whereas the outstanding amount towards discharge of hospital bill was Rs.2,31,772/-. After adjusting the sanctioned amount, a balance of Rs.72,722/- was due from the patient to the hospital. The patient gave a cheque of Rs.30,000/- to the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 which could not be encashed due to insufficiency of funds in the account of drawer and the said cheque is lying with the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 submitted that said amount is still  due from patient/ complainant to the Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital. On 30.12.2008 the patient was again presented as an emergency case with severe chest pain and perspiration with blurring vision.  Patient was diagnosed as MI Hyper Acute Phase and conservation treatment was started. The patient had come at 2.00 PM and at the time of admission, his heart rate was only 36 per minute. His BP was falling. He was given appropriate medical treatment. Because of persistent chest pain, fall in BP and in view of his heart rate and deteriorating condition, patient had to be put on Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) support and costly injections for thinning of blood. The attendant of the patient was explained risk and  grave prognosis and with the consent from the relatives, patient was  taken for emergency revascularisation/ stenting and rescue angioplasty was done which was successful. However, the patient was again developed ventricular fibrillation (very high heart rate) in ICCU. DC shocks were given and CPR (Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) was done and patient was placed on ventilator and temporary pacemaker support. Patient was extuvated and was put off ventilator.  On 31.12.2008 patient was  seen by Dr.Rakesh Sudun, Cardio Thorasic Surgeon and according to him, in that condition patient was not fit for surgery. On  2^nd January, 2009 the patient was on blood thinning injections, he was still not fit for surgery. On 3^rd January, 2009 patient was discharged in stable condition on request of the family with advice for readmission after stopping the blood thinning medication for bye-pass surgery. Patient was again admitted as an emergency on 5^th January, 2009 at 10.00 PM with complaint of acute chest  pain. Patient  was stabilised with conservative  treatment by 2 AM.  (6^th January, 2009). By around 12 Noon, patient’s blood pressure started falling and patient  had to be put on IABP support. Patient was checked by  Dr.A.Ghosh from Oxford Hospital, Jalandhar and was advised bye-pass surgery after stabilization at Oxford Hospital Jalandhar. Finally on 6.1.2009 at 10.00 PM after explaining the serious condition of the patient to his relatives and with their due consent patient was shifted to Oxford Hospital, Jalandhar in their Cardiac Care ambulance with IABP support. Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 submitted that all due care and caution was taken for the safety and life of the patient.  Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 denied that  stenting of the patient was done in a rash and negligent manner which allegedly caused a severe ‘leakage’ in the wall of heart. Rather it was  fully  explained to the relatives of the patient that  due to  repeated heart attack and due to decrease in blood supply to heart, the valves as well as the walls of the heart become weak. As a result there is leakage from the valves and not leakage from the walls of the heart. It is known fact that Ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) refers to mitral insufficiency caused by partial or complete obstruction of one or more coronary arteries.  Patient Tarlok Singh   came to Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital on 26.12.2008 for the fist time with the complaint for the last three months before coming to the hospital, he was having chest pain on exertion and he had come with Chest Pain, Perspiration and Breathlessness. Thus he was getting Ischemic attacks in the past and his blood supply to the heart was considerably decreased. His echo cardiography was done the same day and the report revealed Regional Wall Motion abnormality LAD and LCX territory and moderate Mitral regurgitation (so called valve leakage) which shows that when  patient came to Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital on 26.12.2008, he had valve leakage due to decrease blood supply as a result of blockage and stenting had nothing to do with this. This vale leakage was due to reduced blood supply and not as result of or due to any procedure done in Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital and it was occurring in the patient  even before he came to Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital as is fully clear from ECG report of the patient and this fact was duly explained to the next of the kin of the patient. So, no fact was concealed by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2. The complainant was handed over history sheet and other records of the patient. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 further denied that there was no surgeon for the bye-pass surgery of he complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital. Ultimately, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that Tarlok Singh   father of the complainant approached Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 on 26.12.2008 at 10.30 AM with  complaints of Chest Pain, Perspiration and Breathlessness. He was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital. ECG of the patient was done which showed  changes consistent with heart attack.  His other tests regarding heart attack were also positive as admitted by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 in their written version. On the same day, angiography  of the patient Tarlok Singh   was done, the report of which was very alarming. The LAD was 90%, LCX  90% and RCA 100% block as per the record of Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital  of page 135 of the file and page No.9 of file of Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital Ex.C7. On that day, other record of the test report of the patient was normal. Pulse rate was 78/ MR, blood pressure 130/80, chest B/L Clear, S1/S2 no murmur which clearly proves that the patient was fit for even bye pass surgery or stenting/ angioplasty. The condition of the patient as per angiography report as stated above was so alarming so that the patient could collapse at any moment because  LAD was 90%, LCX  90% and RCA 100% blocked as admitted by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 themselves in the patient record Ex.C7 at page No.9. Not only this, Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital had also taken consent from the patient himself on 26.12.2008  at page No.3 of the record of the Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital Ex.C7 whereby the patient himself has given permission for the performance of any diagnostic examination biopsy, transfusion or operation and for the administration of any anaesthetic, as may be deemed advisable in the course of the hospital admission. But inspite of fully knowing that the patient’s condition was so critical that he could collapse at any movement, due to heart failure, the Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital discharged the patient on the same day i.e. 26.12.2008 as admitted by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 themselves in their written version as is also evident from the record of the patient of Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital Ex.C7, by simply stating that the complainant is discharged on request. Not only this, Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 in their written version  have admitted that ECG of the patient which was done on 26.12.2008 showed changes consistence with heart attack. His other tests regarding heat attack were also positive and the report of the angiography  of the patient done on the same day i.e. 26.12.2008 was very alarming which shows 90% blockage in LAD,  90% blockage in LCX and 100% blockage in RCA. Such like patient should not be allowed to move even, but the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 sent the patient to his home by discharging him on the same day leaving the patient at the mercy of the God which fully proves that Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not act like  prudent Doctors who are supposed to be saviour  of life. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 nowhere got the signatures of the complainant or  any of his attendant before discharging the patient. The column No. 3 of  page No.3 of the record of Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital  Ex.C7 regarding relieving of the patient is totally blank. It is not signed by patient/ his relative nor signed by any witness which fully proves that neither the complainant nor the patient nor any relative of the patient was apprised of the fact of the acute condition of the patient before discharging him from Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital. Had it been told to the patient or complainant or any of his attendants  that the patient could collapse  at any moment, they would not have left the hospital by taking the patient at home, leaving him at the mercy of the God.
10. The main reason for discharging  the patient from the hospital in such a severe/ critical were pecuniary considerations as is  totally clear from the  written version of the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 that they were asking the patient/ his attendants to deposit more than Rs.2 lacs, but patient showed the card of insurance of  Bhai Ghanaiya Scheme  Society vide which he was insured to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- only. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 got the signatures of the complainant on the form of Bhai Ghanaiya Scheme   Society, but the authorized amount in the policy of the patient was Rs.1,59,050/- whereas the outstanding amount towards the bill of Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital was more than Rs.2,30,000/-,  so Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital  discharged the patient only because of pecuniary considerations. They did not care for the life of the patient. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 allege that patient was discharged from the Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital  on 26.12.2008 on the request of the patient, but Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 could not produce any consent of the patient, complainant or any of his attendants regarding discharging from the hospital on 26.12.2008 nor they have written words ‘LAMA’ (left against medical advice), rather Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 fully knowing the serious condition of the patient forcibly discharged him from the hospital on the same day. Being a prudent doctor, Opposite Party No.2-Doctor should not have allowed the patient to move away from the hospital but should have treated him in a proper manner. Had proper stenting/ angioplasty or bye-pass surgery been done on the same day or next day, when the other conditions except the heart ailment of the patient , were quite  fit for surgery as per the record of the patient of Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital  Ex.C7, the condition of the patient would not have deteriorated and ultimately saved from death. The patient was re-admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital on 30.12.2008 as an emergency case with severe chest pain and perspiration with blurring vision and the patient was diagnosed as MI Hyper Acute Phase. The patient deposited Rs.30,000/- through cheque with Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital. Even this time on 30.12.2008 the condition of the patient was serious and it has been admitted by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 that at the time of admission of the patient on 30.12.2008, his heart rate was only 36 per minute. His BP was falling and the patient was  put on Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) support, but even then only one  stenting was done  as  rescue angioplasty whereas other two arteries of the patient were not given any stenting, only because the patient could not fulfil the pecuniary demand of Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital. Other  two arteries were almost fully blocked. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 in their written version have further admitted that the patient again developed   ventricular fibrillation (very high heart rate) in ICCU. DC shocks were given and CPR (Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) was done and patient was placed on ventilator and temporary pacemaker support was given. All this happened as Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not give proper treatment at proper time which includes bye-pass surgery or proper stenting/ angioplasty to the patient because the patient could not deposit the amount demanded by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 i.e. Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital authorities. Even in such a condition, the patient was again discharged from Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 on 3.1.2009 by stating that the patient was discharged in stable condition and this time it was also written that the patient was discharged on the request of the family of the patient, but no written request or consent of the patient or any of his family members was taken by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2. The patient was again re-admitted as an emergency case on 5.1.2009 at 10.00 PM with complaint of acute chest  pain. He was given conservative  treatment at about 12 Noon . The patient’s blood pressure started falling and he was  put on IABP support and then patient was referred to Oxford Hospital Jalandhar for bye-pass surgery under the supervision of Dr.A.Ghosh. There also, as the condition of the patient was very serious, neither stenting/ angioplasty nor bye-pass surgery could be done at Oxford Hospital Jalandhar and ultimately, patient Tarlok Singh expired on 12.1.2009 at Oxford Hospital Jalandhar. The entire record as discussed above of Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital fully proves that had the patient Tarlok Singh deceased  been given proper medical treatment on 26.12.2008, when he was admitted  in Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital i.e. proper  angioplasty/ stenting or bye-pass surgery done in time on the same day or on the next day, when the other conditions of the patient were normal/ quite fit for operation, the patient could have been saved. But due to lingering  on of proper medical treatment of the patient by Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital authorities, only because of pecuniary consideration, resulted into the death of the patient. All this amounts to deficiency of service and medical negligence on the part of Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 at Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital.
11. Complainant alleges that while conducting the stenting/ angioplasty on the patient, Opposite Party No.2 acted in such a rash and negligent manner which caused  severe leakage in the walls of the heart of the patient and Opposite Party No.2-Doctor of Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital did not disclose this fact to the complainant. Complainant further alleges that this point has  been brought to the notice of complainant by the authorities of Opposite Party No.3-Hospital, but the complainant could not produce any documentary or oral evidence to prove that there was leakage of wall of the heart of the father of the complainant Tarlok Singh. The complainant could not produce affidavit of any of the medical authorities of Opposite Party No.3-Hospital to this effect. Moreover, Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2  have clarified that due to repeated heart attacks and due to decrease  blood supply to the heart, the valves as well as the walls of the heart  became weak, as a result of which there was leakage from the valves and not leakage from the walls of the heart. Further the stenting process is limited upto the place where the artery is blocked and not upto the heart. So, the complainant has failed to prove on record  that Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 while conducting  angioplasty/ stenting on the person of patient Tarlok Singh, punctured the wall of the heart of patient as a result of which, there was leakage from the walls of the heart of the patient.
12.  As regard the other allegations of the complainant that the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not supply the treatment record of patient Tarlok Singh to the complainant by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 i.e. Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital authorities, it is clear that patient was sent by Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital authorities to Oxford Hospital Jalandhar on 6.1.2009 alongwith all the relevant medical treatment record of patient Tarlok Singh and Oxford Hospital Jalandhar authorities had given certificate Ex.C1 that patient Tarlok Singh was admitted in Oxford Hospital Jalandhar from 6.1.2009 to 12.1.2009. Medical treatment record pertaining to Tarlok Singh could not be located in the hospital record room as the same has been misplaced during the shifting process of record. All efforts what so ever required have been made, but the file could not be traced. So, Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 i.e. Nayyar Hospital authorities could not be held responsible for not supplying the other treatment record of the patient to the complainant whereas they have produced the patient record which ever was available with them which is Ex.C7 running into 1 to 115 pages.
13. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that due to the deficiency of service as well as medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 as they could not give proper and timely medical treatment to the patient, the patient had expired on 12.1.2009. As such, Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 i.e. Nayyar Hospital authorities are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  
14. Consequently, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 i.e. Nayyar Hospital authorities are directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lacs only) to the complainant as compensation. Opposite Party No.1-Nayyar Hospital authorities are also directed to pay litigation expenses to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 27-05-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member