Haryana

Panchkula

CC/252/2019

SUBHASH . - Complainant(s)

Versus

HEART CENTRE ,CIVIL HOSPITAL (MEDITRINA). - Opp.Party(s)

UMESH WADHWANI,RAJESH KUMAR KHANOWAL AND GOVIND RAI VASHISHTH.

18 Jan 2024

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	252 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	01.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	18.01.2024

 

 

Subhash, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Sh.Nihal Chand, resident of House No.526, Sector-19, Panchkula(Haryana).

                                                                       ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     Heart Centre, Civil Hospital(Meditrina) Haryana through its Senior       Medical Officer, Government Civil Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.     Dr. Anil Sood, Cardiology Department, General Hospital, Sector- 6, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                        ……Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                         Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                         Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Ranjan Arora, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Kapil Sud, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.      

 

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.The brief facts, as alleged, in the present complaint are that the complainant is a poor man, who is residing with his wife in a rented house at Panchkula; On 14.06.2018, the complainant having the feelings of chest pain and breathlessness etc. visited the OP No.1 i.e. Heart Centre Civil Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula and as per the advice of concerned Doctor, he got conducted his test. The complainant again visited the OP No.1 on 18.06.2018 along with his medical test report and after checking the same, the doctor i.e. OP No.2 advised him for getting his angiography test and accordingly, he got conducted his angiography test on 19.06.2018 after getting admission in Civil Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula. On 28.06.2018, the complainant again visited the OPs and after his examination, certain medicines were prescribed. The OP No.2 on 28.6.2018 itself advised the complainant for his angioplasty for insertion of two stents. It is averred that the OP No.2 had provided the estimate amounting to Rs.69,737/- qua the expenses to be incurred in the angioplasty procedure and that the cardiac procedure was performed upon the complainant by the OP  No.2 on 09.07.2018, wherein only one stent was inserted and ballooning procedure was done. It is alleged that the OP No.2 had earlier planned for insertion of two stents, whereas only one stent was inserted without his consent. It was assured by the OP No.2 that he(the complainant) would be alright but his health conditions got deteriorated further after the said procedure performed by OP No.2 upon him on 09.07.2018. It is stated that a sum of Rs.63,115/- out of Rs.69,337/- was charged by the OPs qua the said angioplasty. It is stated that the health condition of the complainant had worsened further after the angioplasty was done by the Ops on 09.07.2018 and thereafter, the complainant was not even able to walk a few steps, although prior to the said cardiac Procedure conducted by OP No.2, he was able to carry out his normal life activities with much ease. It is stated that the complainant visited the OPs No.1 & 2 on 01.08.2018 & 06.08.2018 but got no relief qua his health conditions. On 09.08.2018, the TMT test of the complainant was conducted. On 10.08.2018, the complainant visited the Ojas Super Specialty Hospital, wherein he was advised to get his angiography and other tests. On 13.08.2018, he(the complainant) got admitted in OP’s hospital for angiography check-up. The OPs had misbehaved with him in the operation theater and thereafter, he(the complainant) visited the PGI, Chandigarh for his treatment, wherein a second stent was inserted on 15.11.2018. It is alleged that the complainant had suffered due to the negligent and careless approach adopted by OPs during his treatment. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss, mental agony and harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is submitted that the OP No.1 is a Public-Private Partnership, which is running a Heart Centre in the building of Civil Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula in collaboration with Haryana Government and providing medical facilities at a very nominal rates and is giving treatment to General Public below the rates as charged by Government Institutions i.e. PGI, GMC Sector-32, Chandigarh & others.

                On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had visited the OPs No.1 & 2 on 18.06.2018, instead of 14.06.2018, as alleged , seeking Cardiac Consultation with the complaint of chest pain, breathlessness, Dizziness, for which Rs.116/- was charged as per OPD consultation. The complainant was investigated clinically and pathologically and was advised for angiography. On 19.06.2018, his angiography was done, for which, he was charged Rs.3,209/-. It is submitted that CAG report showed DVD (Double Vessel Disease), 70% block in LAD, (Left Anterior Descending Artery), 80%-90% block in RCA (Right Coronary artery) and PTCA (Percutaneous coronary intervention) to RCA and LAD was advised but the complainant  was not willing for the same because of financial issues, so he(complainant) was discharged on 20.06.2018. All the risks were explained to the complainant and the attendants. The complainant came up for follow up on 28.06.2018 and proper consultation was given to him. No charges were taken from him for the said visit. It is submitted that the complainant was suggested for PTCA because as per his CAG report and examination, there were blockages in his heart. It is submitted that on 09.07.2018, cardiac procedure was done by OP No.2 and, on 09.07.2018,-PTCA to LAD (Single stent) was done and 2^nd stent was not inserted because as per Dr.Anil Sood(OP No.2), lesion was not found to be significant and it was only done after prior consents of complainant and the attendant. It is incorrect that after the said treatment, the condition of the complainant had got deteriorated and he was not able to walk few steps as earlier and was not able to carry-out his normal life activities. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.63,115/- was charged out of Rs.69,737/- and the remaining  amount was refunded to the complainant. One PTCA guide wire worth Rs.8,400/-, one Fibroban Injection worth Rs.5,394/- was also given to complainant. No additional charge was charged for ballooning procedure. It is denied that the complainant’s health had got deteriorated on 18.07.2018. It is submitted that the complainant was hale and healthy on 18.08.2017 and TMT was done for his satisfaction and the same was found normal. It is submitted that the complainant was provided proper consultation and medicines were prescribed on his visit on 06.08.2018(wrongly mentioned as 06.08.2019). The ECG of the complainant was done, for which Rs.16/- were charged and Rs.116/- were charged for OPD consultation. The visit of the complainant to OJAS Super Specialty  hospital on 10.08.2018 was having no concern with OPs and the complainant was advised and treated very well by the Ops. The complainant visited the Ops on 13.08.2018 and his angiography was done, wherein patent stent with 50% lesion of RCA was seen. Thereafter, the complainant did not come up for follow up. It is submitted that as per official record, the complainant is a chronic smoker and he was advised to quit the same. It has been prayed that the present complaint being baseless, frivolous and meritless is liable to be dismissed.   

3.             Replication to the written statement of the OPs was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-19 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavits as Annexure R-A & R-2/A along with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-10 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant  as well as OPs and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments/Synopsis filed by the complainant as well as the OPs, minutely and carefully.

6.The learned counsel for the complainant, during arguments,  reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) of the complainant and written submissions/ synopsis and alleged  the negligence and lack of care and proper precautions on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 during the treatment of the complainant. The main submissions as made by the learned counsel for the complainant are summarized as under:-

i.      That the complainant had made a total of 10 visits w.e.f. 14.06.2018 till 13.08.2018 to OPs seeking his treatment pertaining to his heart ailments but he got no relief. As per estimate (Annexure C-5), the complainant was planned for performing his angioplasty by fitting/ inserting of two stents, whereas the Doctor(OP No.2), without the consent and knowledge of the complainant, working negligently and carelessly, in a causal manner, had done the angioplasty on 09.07.2018 by fitting/inserting one stent only instead of two stents as planned. In addition, ballooning procedure was also conducted so as to reuse the balloon for any other patient for earning the money.

ii.      That the health condition of the complainant got deteriorated further after his angioplasty was done by the OP No.2 on 09.07.2018 and accordingly, he approached the OPs again on 09.08.2018, who conducted his TMT test, which was to be terminated in between as total Heart rate could not be achieved, but the Ops had wrongly shown his TMT test report as normal vide report (Annexure C-9).

iii.     That the complainant was forced to visit PGI, Chandigarh for his treatment qua heart ailments because of negligence and omissions, on the part of OPs, while not inserting two stents in the LAD Artery as planned. It is contended that due to the negligent acts, Omissions and misconduct on the part of the OPs, health of the complainant had got deteriorated to such an extent that two more stents and wires had to be inserted in his heart by PGI, Chandigarh in addition to the 01 stent inserted previously by OP No.2.

                Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as prayed for in the present complaint.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the OPs accompanied by Dr.Anil Sood(OP No.2), has controverted the allegations as leveled by the complainant qua negligence and omissions on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2, during the treatment of the complainant. The submissions as made by the learned counsel as well as Dr. Anil Sood(OP No.2) are summarized as under:-

1. That the complainant had first time contacted the OP No.2 on 18.06.2018 instead of 14.06.2018 as alleged, seeking cardiac consultation. On 19.06.2018, his angiography was done, and CAG report showed DVD(Double Vessel Disease), 70% block in LAD, (Left Anterior Descending Artery)80%-90% block in RCA (Right Coronary Artery); accordingly, PTCA(Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) to RCA and LAD was advised, but the complainant was not willing for the same because of financial issues; so, he was discharged on 20.06.2018. All the risks were explained to him and the attendants.
2. That the Cardiac procedure was performed upon the complainant on 09.07.2018, wherein one stent was inserted i.e. PTCA to LAD(single stent). The second stent in RCA was not fitted because lesion was not found to be significant and in this regard, the complainant and the attendant had given the consent. In addition, one PTCA guide wire worth Rs.840/- and one Fibroban Injection worth Rs.5,394/- was given to the complainant.
3. That TMT test was found normal as per coronary angiography report(Annexure C-9).
4. That the decision and observations of OP No.2 qua insertion of one stent in LAD was correct as the PGI Chandigarh also had inserted the stent in the LAD only.
5. That the matter in dispute pertains to the operations of OP No.1, which is managing a heart center in collaboration with the Haryana Government at Civil Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula under Public-Private Partnership and the medical services are provided at rates, below those charged by Government institutions like PGI, GMC, Sector-32, Chandigarh.
6. That the OPs had acted with utmost care and precautions by following the norms/medical protocol as per well established medical practice and procedure.

The learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance upon the following case laws:-

1. M.A.Biviji Vs. Sunita & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4847 of 2023 decided on 19.10.2023(SC).
2. Upendra Kaul Vs. S.C.Mathur(Dead) the Lrs. & Anr. in Civil Appeal nos. 3905, 3906 & 3907 of 2016 decided on 16.08.2023(SC).
3. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre Vs. Asha Jaiswal and Ors. in Civil Appeal nos.1658 & 2322 of 2010 decided on 30.11.2021(SC)
4. Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Ors. in Civil Appeal no.1385 of 2001 decided on 10.02.2010(SC).

Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint being baseless and frivolous and meritless.

8.Admittedly, the complainant, having the problem of chest pain, breathlessness on exertion etc. got admitted in Civil Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula, wherein his coronary angiography(CAG) was conducted by OP No.2 on 19.06.2018 and as per CAG report (Annexure C-3), DVD (Double Vessel Disease), i.e.70% blockage in LAD(Left Anterior Descending Artery) and 80% -90% Blockage in RCA (Right Coronary Artery) was found and accordingly, he was advised PTCA (Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) to RCA and LAD. As per Annexure C-5/R-3, an estimate of Rs.69,737/- was given by OPs to the complainant qua performing of his angioplasty by inserting two stents and accordingly, he was planned for angioplasty for insertion of two stents on 09.07.2018 vide estimate dated 28.06.2018(Annexure C-5) which reads as under:-

•  

This is to certifythat Subash, 58 yearsmale admitted in our unit in an emergency basis and undergone CAG on 19.06.2018 and advised for Angioplastyas earlier as possible.

Estimate (Package)

1. Procedure Charge              :        22487.00(2 day stay including)
2. Stent Cost                        :        47250.00(23625.00/stent) 2 stent

Total Expenditure Appox:69737.00

(Sixty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Seven)

 

9.The angioplasty of the complainant was performed on 09.07.2018, wherein only one stent in LAD(Left Anterior Descending Artery) was inserted instead of two stents asplanned, the details as perbill dated 09.07.2018 are given as under -:

•  

Ballon Coronary angioplasty22,487.00 122,487.00

•  

Sub total:22,487.00

Coronary angiography 3,209.001.003,209.00

PACA Guide Wire 8,400.001.008,400.00

Sub total:11,609.00

90219090 CORONARY

STENT, TREAT 3X2423,025.001.0023,625.00

•  

3004 Fibroban 100ML INJ.

•  

 

Sub total:            29,019.90Total Bill        63,115.00

 

10.The grievances of the complainant is that his condition had got deteriorated further after the said angioplasty was done by OPs on 09.07.2018 and in this regard, lack of diligence and adoption of casual approach has been alleged on the part of OP No.2, who had inserted one stent in LAD(Left Anterior Descending Artery) instead of two as planned.

11.  

12.Keeping in view the above mentioned factual position, we find no lapses or negligence/omissions on the part of the OP No.2, while taking the decision of inserting of one stent in the LAD of the complainant on 09.07.2018 in place of two stents.

13.It is not the case of the complainant that the OP had charged an excess amount from him during his treatment rather a sum of Rs.6,622/-(Rs.69,737-63,115) was refundedto him out of the total estimate amounting to Rs.69,737/- given to him vide Annexure C-5 dated 28.06.2018. As such, it was in the notice of the complainant that only one stent was inserted by OP No.2, while conducting his angioplasty on 09.07.2018. Therefore, no malafide intentions can be attributed qua the acts on the part of OPs.

14.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no force and substance in the version of the complainant; hence, the complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 18.01.2024

 

 

        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg              Satpal

                  Member                         Member                           President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal

                                        President

 

 

 

               

C.C.No. 252 of 2019

Present:             Sh.Ranjan Arora, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Kapil Sud, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.      

                                               

 

                       Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

                         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt. 18.01.2024

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav       Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President