Punjab

Patiala

CC/17/351

Sukhwinder SIngh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Giani Lal Singh Memorial Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. H.P.S. Tatla

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 351/2017
Date of Institution	:	13.9.2017
Date of Decision	:	12.4.2023

 

 

Sukhwinder Singh aged about 39 years, son of Sh.Chand Singh, resident of village Panjola Tehsil and District Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

 

1.       Giani Lal Singh Memorial Hospital, 35-A, Bank Colony, Patiala, District Patiala (PB) 147001 through its Manager.

 

2.       New India Assurance Co. Ltd. branch office near Swani Motors Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

QUORUM

 

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Aman  Verma, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Anil Puri, counsel for OP No.1.

                             Sh.Anand Puri, counsel for OP No.2.

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sh.Chand Singh        (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Giani Lal Singh Memorial Hospital and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That the complainant is an agriculturist. He met with an accident on 21.5.2017 and sustained multiple injuries and was admitted to Columbia Asia Hospital for treatment. After discharge from the said hospital, he admitted to the hospital of OP No.1 and deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. He was operated on 19.6.2017 for DHS (Rt).During operation, doctors of OP No.1 transfused blood not matched with the blood group of complainant due to which health condition of the complainant deteriorated. He discharged from the hospital of OP No.1 and again admitted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala. Doctors of Columbia Asia Hospital told that such condition of the patient was due to wrong transfusing of blood group. Due to negligence of doctors of OP No.1, complainant has to remain on bed for long time and spent huge amount on his treatment. He also suffered mentally and physically. Complainant issued legal notice dated 20.7.2017 upon OP No.1 to pay the amount but of no avail. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint.

3. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel filed written version. It has also filed an application for impleading New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as OP No.2, which was allowed vide order dated 20.3.2018. Notice to OP No.2 was also issued who appeared through counsel and filed written statement.
4. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it is submitted that patient was discharged on 31.5.2017 from Columbia Asia Hospital. It is admitted to the extent that complainant was admitted in the hospital of OP No.1 on 19.6.2017 for the treatment of multiple fractures suffered due to alleged accident. The patient was HCV positive. It is denied that Rs.1 Lakh was deposited by the complainant. In fact an amount of Rs.10,500/- was deposited by him on 19.6.2017. With regard to blood not matching the blood group of complainant, it is submitted that his blood group was O +ve. The attendants of the complainant were asked to arrange for the same. Accordingly the blood was brought by the attendants of the patient from Blood bank of Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala after cross matching of the blood was done by the said blood bank. Even the slip pasted on the container by the blood bank, indicating O+ve group. Since one unit of matching blood group was administered by OP No.1, as such there was no question of blood reaction due to mismatching.
5. It is further submitted that during and after the surgery, patient was continuously monitored by Dr.Sameer of OP No.1. Complainant’s complaint was of some un-easiness which was diagnosed as PSVT (Paroxysmal Supra Ventricular Tachycardia) which means increased heart rate. However, at the insistence of attendants, patient was referred to (not discharged as alleged) the Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala. Dr.Sameer himself went alongwith patient to Columbia Asia Hospital. File of the complainant maintained by Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala does not show any line of treatment of transfusion of wrong or mismatched blood. The line of treatment given by Columbia Asia Hospital was also for PSVT and patient was managed conservatively and discharged after 3 days only. There is no negligence/ deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.After denying all other averments, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
6. In the written statement filed by OP No.2, it took various preliminary objections. On merits, it filed reply as is filed by OP No.1 thus the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity. It is however, submitted that OP has issued Professional Indemnity Insurance Medical Establishment in favour of OP No.1 for the period 27.4.2016 to 26.4.2017 in favour of M/s Giani Lal Singh Memorial Hospital for a sum of Rs.20lacs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OP No.2 also prayed for dismissal of complaint.
7. In evidence, ld. counsel for the complainant furnished Ex.CA affidavit of complainant, Ex.C1 copy of discharge slip, Ex.C2 copy of reference slip, Ex.C3 copy of discharge summary, Ex.C4 copy of legal notice, Ex.C5 postal receipt, Ex.C6 copy of discharge summary.
8. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Dr.Sameer Arora, Ex.OP2 copy of receipt dated 19.6.2017, Ex.OP3 copy of cross match slip (blood component), Ex.OP4 lab report, Ex.OP5 policy schedule and closed evidence.
9. Ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajindera Singh Mahatam, Sr.Divisional Manager of OP, Ex.OP1 copy of insurance policy with terms and conditions and closed evidence.
10. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The complainant has alleged that he met with an accident on 21.5.2017 and was admitted to Columbia Asia Hospital for treatment. He was discharged from the hospital on 30.5.2017 after surgery. The discharge summary is Ex.C1.Thereafter, complainant had some pain and he reported to hospital of OP No.1 on 19.6.2017, where he was operated upon for DHS (Rt.) (Dynamic Hip Screw) as per medical record Ex.C2. The complainant has alleged that an amount of Rs.1 Lakh was deposited with OP No.2 for the said admission and surgery. One unit of blood was transfused .Complainant has alleged that wrong blood group not matching with the blood group of complainant was transfused as a result of which complainant developed complications and was referred to Columbia Asia Hospital for further treatment. The complainant was admitted in Columbia Asia Hospital on 20.6.2017 and was discharged from there on 23.6.2017 after the treatment. Discharge summary is Ex.C3. Complainant has alleged deficiency on the part of OP No.1 as wrong blood group was transfused by it, leading to the complications for which complainant had to suffer mentally, physically and financially.
12. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the complainant was admitted in their hospital on 19.6.2017 for the treatment of multiple fractures. OP No.1 has denied receipt of Rs.one lakh from the complainant and has produced on record receipt of Rs.10500/- deposited by the complainant, which is Ex.OP2. He has further argued that blood group of the complainant was O +ve and since the complainant was to be operated their attendants were asked to arrange for one unit of blood. The blood was arranged by them from the Blood Bank of Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and crossed match slip of the blood to be administered to the complainant is Ex.OP3.Thus unit of blood arranged by attendants of complainant was administered to the complainant by OP No.1.Cross match is universal adopted principle for transfusion of blood. As such the allegations of the complainant that wrong or mis match unit of blood was transfused is not tenable and is not proved.
13. Condition of the complainant was continuously monitored by OP No.1.The complainant reported some uneasiness and was promptly attended to by the doctors in the hospital of OP No.1.However, the complainant was referred to Columbia Asia Hospital at the request of the attendants of the complainant only and was not discharged. Complainant was then admitted in Columbia Asia Hospital who in its report has no where mentioned that condition of the patient was due to transfusion of wrong or mis-matched group of blood and in fact the treatment carried for PSVT (Paroxysmal Supra Ventricular  Tachycardia) i.e. increased heart rate was continued in the hospital.
14. Admittedly, the complainant was operated in the hospital of OP no.1 on 19.6.2017 and a unit of blood was transfused to the complainant. As per the cross match slip produced by the OPs, the said unit of blood was arranged from the Blood Bank of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for which cross matching of the blood was done by them. The same unit of blood was transfused to the complainant.
15. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has also relied upon the judgment of the case of Meenakshi Vs. Dr.Surekha Sacher and Anr. 1992(2)C.P.J.60 decided by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh,to support his case.
16. Further allegation of the complainant that Rs.1 Lakh was deposited with OP No.1 could not be proved as he has not produced any receipt in this regard. In fact receipt of Rs.10500/- has been produced by OP No.1, which was deposited by the complainant. As such all the allegations leveled by the complainant could not be proved by him by placing cogent and convincing evidence. We are therefore, of the opinion that the complaint is without merit and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.   
17.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President