DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.582 of 2015 Date of institution: 28.10.2015 Date of decision : 20.02.2017
Lalit Garg, resident of 1215, Universal Enclave, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh, UT.
……..Complainant
Versus
Fortis Hospital through its Managing Director/Owner/MD Sector 62, Phase-8, Mohali 160062.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Ms. Vandana , counsel for the complainant.
Shri Munish Kapila, counsel for the OP.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant, Lalit Garg has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) for deficiency in services and malpractices. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant due to chest pain visited Mukat Hospital in the night of 23rd September, 2015 where he was not treated properly and he went to the OP for further treatment. The OP confirmed that there is blockage in the arteries of the complainant. The complainant was administered with morphine injection and without his consent the OP did his surgery and put vessels/stents in the arteries on 24.09.2015. It is pleaded that if the surgery was necessary, the complainant would have taken it from his home town hospital at Bathinda as the treatment of the OP hospital was quite costly. The surgery and putting up vessels/stents in the arteries of the complainant without his consent, is unprofessional and malpractices on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to pay him Rs.5,00,000/- for malpractice and costs of litigation.
3. The complaint is contested by the OP by filing reply, in which it has raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, unwarranted and not maintainable. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The complainant was brought to the emergency of the OP Hospital on 23.9.2015 with acute Heart Attack. The ECG of the complainant showed Infero Lateral STEMI which requires immediate treatment. As the complainant had severe pain, he was injected injection of morphine. There are two modes of treating a patient; one is thrombolysis and other is primary angioplasty. Thrombolysis involves administering clot busting drugs and has much lower success rate and is less efficacious than Primary Angioplasty. The treatment of choice is primary angioplasty and the second option is thrombolysis which is performed at institutes where primary angioplasty is not available. Despite having been explained everything, complainant’s brother refused primary angioplasty as such the patient was planned for thrombolysis and consented for it in writing. Thereafter primary angioplasty was conducted and stents were inserted in PDA and LCx. Angiography and Angioplasty procedures recorded on the CD clearly shows blockage of vessels prior to procedure as well as condition after stents had been applied. The patient had ongoing heart attack with severe pain response and High Blood Pressure; as a severe pain response; he needed injection morphine (opiate) to control his agitation and pain; which is recommended treatment. Since morphine caused sedation and patient had compromised mental faculties owing to pain and morphine administered therefore, he was not in a position to understand all the information given to him. Deepak brother of the complainant was informed about the procedure and treatment option who consented for Primary angioplasty. On merits, the OPs has denied the averments of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of bill dated 25.09.2015 Ex.C-1 and discharge summary Ex.C-2. In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Abhijit Singh, Faculty Director Ex.OP-1/1; affidavit of Dr. R.K. Jaswal Ex.OP-1/2; copies of ECG Ex.OP-1; consent Ex.OP-2; angiography report Ex.OP-3; angioplasty/PTCA report Ex.OP-3/A; General consent for admission Ex.OP-4; surgery (MSOT) observation counseling form Ex.OP-5; triage assessment sheet Ex.OP-6; triage history and physical sheet Ex.OP-7; cardiac history and physical examination sheet Ex.OP-8; evaluation and care plan Ex.OP-9 and daily doctor progress notes Ex.OP-10.
5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the OP hospital has conducted angioplasty without his consent. The complainant was fully conscious and the consent shown from the brother of the complainant is fake as he had not given any consent. In order to earn money from the complainant the OP had conducted angioplasty without consent of the complainant.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the complainant was brought to the emergency of the OP Hospital on 23.09.2015 with acute Heart Attack. He was administered morphine in the emergency room to control his agitation and pain. The brother of the complainant was explained about the procedure to be done on the complainant and after understanding the same he opted for angioplasty and gave his consent for the same.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties and heard the oral submissions, addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that in the present case when the complainant was brought to the OP on 23.09.2015 he was having acute heart attach which required immediate treatment. The complainant had ongoing severe pain which had exacerbated into high blood pressure. He was administered morphine (opiate) in the Emergency to control his agitation and pain as is evident from the medical record produced by the OP which is Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-10. Since the complainant was not in a position to give the consent being under the effect of morphine, his brother was explained about the procedure to be adopted on the complainant, who after understanding the procedure gave consents Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-2. The OP conducted the angioplasty on the complainant only after consent given by the brother of the complainant. Thus, in our view the OP has not been deficient and conducted any unfair trade practice while conducting angioplasty on the complainant.
8. In view of our aforestated discussion we find that the complainant has been failed to prove the case of any medical negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Thus, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 07.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 20.02.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Ms. Natasha Chopra)
Member
