1.       Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.       The above appeal has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan dated 08.11.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No.112 of 2014, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent has been partly allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.2,60,000/- towards the fare paid for air ambulance along with interest @ 9% per annum to the respondent and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- for costs.

3.       In brief, the respondent in CC/112/2014 has stated that Hari Mohan Sharma, complainant was admitted to S.K. Kalla Hospital at Jaipur on 20.02.2014 and was diagnosed as follows:

          (i)      Pyogenic Meningoencephalitis with seizures,

          (ii)      Type II Diabetes Mellitus,

          (iii)     Gangrene,

          (iv)     Septic shock

          (v)     Acute Kidney Injury.

4.       Dr. Mukesh Kalla at the S.K. Kalla Hospital advised to shift the patient for better treatment to Medanata Hospital at Gurgaon.  In order to shift the patient in the safe condition, the complainant hired air ambulance services of the opposite party and shifted the patient to Gurgaon on 22.02.2014.  While shifting the complainant through air ambulance from Jaipur to Gurgaon, it was noticed by the complainant’s family member that the monitor which records the heartbeat, ECG, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, blood pressure etc. and on the basis of whose recordings medication is provided to the patient as and when required and the monitor which is most essential and integral part of ICU facility was missing and was lying idle in the air ambulance as its battery was not available.  According to the complainant it is vital to mention that before shifting, the complainant was in ICU and was on ventilator as his condition was critical and the complainant was under doctor’s surveillance round the clock and hence in such circumstances, the complainant needed special care and accurate monitoring and as per normal practice, air ambulance is supposed to be full-fledged ICU unit with all basic required facilities as usually used in very critical cases but to the utter surprise, such a necessary equipment i.e. monitor was lying idle and was not put to use by non-complainant air ambulance.

5.       The appellant has submitted its written reply and the allegation in this respect has been replied by the appellant as follows:

          “6.      That it is submitted that it is not true to state that Cardiac Monitor was not functioning properly. It is submitted that the complainant has stated in Para no.7 of the complaint that the Cardiac monitor was missing and then stated that it was lying idle as its battery was missing.  It is submitted that statement made in this regard is false as the Monitor can be seen in the pictures provided by the complainant.  It is clarified that sometimes if the patient is stable and the doctor is confident about the stability of the patient, they switch the cardiac monitor off for the brief periods to save battery.  Also in case the cardiac monitor stops function due to discharged battery, the non-complainant always carry a cardiac defibrillator, which is another Medical Emergency device required by the World Medical Association to be carried on board.  This device can also be used as a backup in place of cardiac monitor so question of Medical Negligence due to stated nonfunctioning Cardiac Monitor (however not admitted in view of the averments made hereinabove) does not arise as firstly it did not get discharged.”

6.       Before the State Commission, the complainant has filed the photographs to prove that the cardiac monitor was stopped and its meter was not functioning. The State Commission, relying upon the photographs as well as considering the cases of the parties has found that the patient was shifted from ICU but during shifting in air ambulance the necessary services as provided in ICU have not been provided by the opposite party, therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  On this finding the complaint was partly allowed.  Hence, this appeal has been filed.

7.       In the appeal, the appellant tried to state that it was dependent upon the decision of the doctor attending in the ambulance to provide the service if needed. Contention is that the condition of the patient was stable as such attending doctor did not consider it necessary to provide the necessary service in order to save the battery. The devices / instruments viz. Defibrillator, Pulse Oximeter, BP Cuff and Cardiac Monitor were attached to the patient in the air ambulance.

8.       We have considered the arguments.  That the complainant/respondent having availed the air ambulance services, has not been disputed by the appellant.  The allegation of the complainant is that the necessary monitoring services which were being provided to the patient during his treatment in ICU have not been provided in the air ambulance and this fact has not been disputed in any para of the written reply. The finding of the fact regarding deficiency of service recorded by the State Commission does no suffer from any infirmity or illegality.  The appeal has no merits and is dismissed.