BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.466 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          11.07.2014

                                               Date of Decision:             29.05.2015

Manjit Singh Dilawar son of Late Inderjit Singh Dilawar resident of House No.667, PSB Officers Society, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Fortis Hospital, Sector 62, Phase-VIII, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Director.

………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

Shri Munish Kapila, counsel for the OP.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the complaint with the following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to :

(a)    pay him 7,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment.

(b)    to pay him of Rs.2,55,380/-  alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

(c)    pay him Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

                The complainant has pleaded that he was suffering from knee (L) joint pains and got treatment from PGI as well as GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.  The complainant also visited the OP for treatment and the OP suggested for replacement of his knee to get rid of sufferings. The complainant was admitted in the OP hospital on 14.03.2013 and was operated upon the left leg on 15.03.2013 for knee replacement. The complainant was discharged on 26.03.2013.  The amount of Rs.2,55,380/-  was paid by the insurance company of the daughter of the complainant to  the OP.  At the time of discharge  the OP assured the complainant that he would get the relief within 2-3 months. After 2-3 months the complainant again visited the OP but the concerned doctor made one excuse or the other and gave false assurance to the complainant that it will take some time to heal.  The complainant also got himself checked up from Dr. Ajay Bhambri and Dr. Ramesh who prescribed some medicines and kept on giving false assurance to him but without any result.  Ultimately the complainant visited the PGI where his x-ray was conducted but was not given any report. The complainant then went to Ivy Hospital who also prescribed some medicines but till date he has got no relief.  The complainant visited OP on 11.06.2014 but Dr. Parduman Singh did not pay any heed to his sufferings.  Inspite of spending huge amount, the complainant is suffering from the same problem for which he has taken treatment from the OP.  Thus, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             The OP in its written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complainant is a known case of Coronary Artery Disease, Hypertension and Diabetes Miletus Type 2  came to the OP with history of sudden onset of slurring of speech from last 12 days and chest pain on and off on exertion associated with profuse diaphoresis and restlessness in the month of December, 2011. He was admitted on 02.12.2011 and underwent Post Left Carotid Angioplasty. The complainant then underwent Stenting to Left Circumflex Artery (post PTCA to LCx). He was discharged on 04.12.2011 in a stable condition on optimal management. The complainant again admitted to the OP on 14.03.2014 with problem  of Osteoarthritis Left Knee for undergoing Total knee replacement. In view of past history of the complainant, he was explained all risks and complications of Total Knee Replacement and written consent of the complainant was obtained. The complainant underwent Total Knee Replacement on 15.03.2013 which was conducted by Dr. Pardaman Singh, Senior Consultant as per standard medical practice. The complainant was discharged on 26.03.2013 in a stable condition. Thereafter, the complainant visited Dr. Pardaman Singh and the complainant was asked to continue exercise.  Thereafter the complainant visited many Orthopedician and Dr. Sudhir Garg of Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32 Chandigarh in his prescription specifically noted that the complainant’s surgical scar had healed and there was no local rise and temperature and no tenderness. The complainant was advised static quadriceps exercises. Dr. Parduman Singh on 11.06.2014 after clinical examination found the complainant to be alright. The predictors of pain after total knee replacement could be because of variety of reasons. The complainant had both medical and neurological problems. In this background the pain does not have any co-relation with the surgery.  On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant underwent TKR left Knee after understanding all the risk and complications. Pain is associated after surgery.  The complainant was checked by Dr. Ramesh Sen and Dr. Ajay Bhambri and both the doctors found nothing wrong with the treatment given and advised physiotherapy.  For a normal recovery after knee replacement surgery exercise is very essential and the same was probably lacking on the part of the complainant.  Thus, denying any medical negligence and deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-7.

4.             Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Abhjit Singh, Faculty Director Ex.OP-1/1; affidavit of Dr. Ajay Bhambri Ex.OP-1/2 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to  Ex.OP-7.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through their written arguments.

6.             Admittedly the complainant has availed the services of the OP on two different occasions on 02.12.2011 when he was suffering from cardiac problem and remained admitted in the hospital for two days from 02.12.2011 to 04.12.2011 Ex.OP-1. The treatment he has got during this period, he was satisfied with the same as per the satisfactory note given by him. On the second occasion i.e. 14.03.2013 the complainant went to the OP with the left knee problem. He was admitted in the hospital on 14.03.2014 and after knee transplant he was discharged on 26.03.2013. As per the discharge summary the complainant was advised physiotherapy as post surgery rehabilitation. The grievance of the complainant is that he is still having pain in the left knee despite replacement and is uncomfortable while moving and climbing stairs.  Thereafter the complainant has taken opinion from various hospitals and finally Max Hospital, Mohali vide Ex.C-7 “advised revision TKR left”. Therefore, on the basis of this report, the complainant has alleged medical negligence on the part of the OP.

7.             We have perused the record and found that the OP has recorded all the procedures and processes in the discharge summary Ex.OP-6. On the application of the OP, the matter was referred to PGI Chandigarh for having the opinion of Medical Board regarding the treatment given to the complainant by the OP. In pursuance to this, the PGI constituted a medical board and the complainant appeared before the Board on 21.03.2015. After clinically, physically and radiologically examining the complainant and the medical record produced before the Board, the Board reached to the conclusion that “implanted knee has satisfactory alignment, no revision is required”.  The complainant has not challenged the report of the PGI and, therefore, the PGI report is accepted to show that there is no defect or deficiency in the treatment given to the complainant by the OP. It is a well settled law that difference of opinion of various doctors is in no manner amounts to deficiency in service or medical negligence. Therefore, we do not find anything amiss on the part of the OP.

8              Thus, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. However, during the course of proceedings the complainant has shown his interest to revisit the OP to have the medical opinion to rule out the reasons for discomfort and pain which he is suffering after the knee transplantation. In this regard, we feel that the OP will be gracious, as a goodwill gesture, to give one free consultation by the treating doctor/consultant as indoor/outdoor patient,  as and when the complainant approaches the OP.        Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

May 29, 2015.     

                            (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (Amrinder Singh)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member