Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/1260/2018

Ashok Kumar Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ivy Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.                                                       

                                                                                   RBT/CC/1260/2018

CC No. 1260 of 2018

                                                                             Date of Institution: 03.12.2018

                                                                             Date of Decision:30.08.2022  

 

Ashok Kumar Bansal S/o Sh. Satya Nand Bansal, aged about 63 years, R/o H. No.3072, Sector 50-D, Blood Donor Co-operative House Building Society, Chandigarh.                                                                         …………....Complainant(s)

                                                     Versus

1. Ivy Hospital, Super Speciality Health Care, Sec 71, Mohali thorugh its Chairman/CEO.
2. The New Indian Assurance  Company Limited, SCO No.91-93, Fist Floor,  Sec 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 

…………....Opposite Party(s)

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986

 

Quorum

Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

Ms.Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present: Sh.Davinder Singh, Counsel for the complainant.

               Sh.Inderpreet Singh, Counsel for OP No.1.

               Sh. Amanpreet Singh, Counsel for OP No.2.

Order By

Pushvinder Singh, President 

 

1.            The complaint has been filed present complaint(hereinafter referred to as ‘CC’) against the opposite parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) with the allegations that his son Aseem Bansal was suffering from Hodgkins Lymphoma(one of the category of blood cancer) and undergone 4 chemo cycles of ABVD regime, 4 chemo cycles of GDP regime and 4 cycles of Vive Chemo as advised by PGI, Chandigarh. But none of above therapy responded positively. Subsequently Auto Logus Bone Marrow Transplant (BMT) was done in PGI on 12.07.2017 but again the disease recurred in September, 2017. He also undergone the alternative treatment of Ayurvedic/homeopathic but the same also did not respond positively. As per advise of consulting doctors complainant decided to go for radiation of his son(Aseem Bansal) and visited the IVY Hospital, Mohali and CT Scan neck was done on 17.08.2018. After going through the report of CT Scan, OP No.1 advised the CC for package of IMRT/Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy of 28 fractions, to be done in 2 phases of 14 each and amount of package was finalized for Rs.1,10,000/- was paid on different dates before the completion of first phase of 14 fractions. On receipt of payment OP No.1 started first fraction on 23.08.2018 and 14^th fraction was completed on 13.09.2018. It took lot of days i.e. 24 days as radiation machine remained out of order whereas the entire process of first phase should have been completed within maximum 14015 days. 6^th fraction was done on 29.08.2018 and thereafter 7^th fraction was done on 03.09.2018 and during this period machine of OP No.1 remained out of order. Further, during radiations done on some dates prior and after the above-referred period the time taken in the radiation was varying 60-90 minutes whereas actual process was hardly for 20-35 minutes, reflecting damage to the patient due to erratic machine. After completion of the first phase of fraction, condition of CC’s son was deteriorated probably due to offshoots of radiations and from MRI of brain and cervical spine it was revealed that disease has shifted to brain and spine and his life span is very limited and now the second phase of 14 fractions is not possible. So, CC requested the OP No.1 to refund the balance amount on prorate basis. On asking the OP No.1, the CC sent an email on 01.11.2018 with request to refund the balance amount. But no information was received from the OP so reminders were issued and in response to the email dated 13.11.2018 CC received an email dated 14.11.2018 from the OP No.1 and OP No.1 advised the CC to collect the cheque of Rs.13,000/- from their office being the amount of refund. But the CC did not accept the offer of OP as total amount of 14 fractions was Rs.77,000/- and the rate per fraction was Rs.5500/-. There was an amount of Rs.20,000/- as planning charges. The CC has requested to direct the OP No.1 to refund a sum of Rs.55,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum along with amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for harassment and mental tension and agony and also to pay sum of Rs.33,000/- on account of litigation expense.
2.               Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs. OPs appeared and filed reply/version by admitting the admission of son of CC for treatment and also admitting that son of CC was advised for 28 IMRT in two phases of 14 each. The OP has alleged that the CC has concealed the true facts as the son of CC was given special package and discounted since it was palliative treatment. Total package was of Rs.1,30,000/- and on request of CC Rs.20,000/- more discount was given and finally the package was settled for Rs.1,10,000/- for 28 fractions in two phases of 14 each.
3.              The rate of per fraction was Rs.5500/- total amounting to Rs.1,54,000/- for 28 fractions and Rs.20,000/- was planning charges being it was a IMRT total amounting of Rs.1,74,000/-. It has also been admitted by the OP that on completion first phase of 14 fractions the condition of son of CC was deteriorated due to reaction of radiation and the disease was shifted to brain and spine and due to this second phase of 14 fractions was not possible thus the patient was discharged from the hospital. Since The patient was given special discounted package of Rs.1,10,000/- so, the OPs is not liable to refund any amount out of the package of fractions and amount of Rs.13,000/- was found to be refunded so the CC was informed to collect the cheque of Rs.13,000/- from the office of OPs. OP No.2 stated that OP No.1 was insured vide policy no.35020036180200000005 w.e.f. 04.04.2018 to 03.04.2019 but there is no certain allegation with concrete evidence of professional negligence in the complaint against OP No.1 as such the answering OP is not liable to pay any compensation. OPs denied all other allegations and prayed for dismissal of complaint.                  
4.            In evidence CC furnished his affidavit in support of the complaint as Ex.CW1/1 and also proved copy of discharge summary issued by PGI as Ex.C-1, copy of report of CT Scan neck dated 17.08.2018 as Ex.C-2, copies of payment receipts as Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5, copy of treatment record and treatment summary as Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, copies of reports as Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9, copies of emails as Ex.-10 to Ex.C-13.
5.                   We have heard the counsels for the parties and have gone through the file carefully.
6.                    In the present complaint all facts are admitted regarding the disease of son of CC and the son of CC was advised for 28 fractions of IMRT in two phases of 14 each. It is also admitted fact that a package was given to the son of CC of Rs.1,30,000/- and on the request of CC another discount of Rs.20,000/- was given and the final package was settled for Rs.1,10,000/- for 28 fractions in two phases of 14 fractions each. It is also admitted that in first phase 14 fractions were given to the son of CC but thereafter condition of son of CC deteriorated and from the MRI of brain and cervical spine it was revealed that it disease has shifted to his brain and spine and his life span was very limited and 14 fractions of second phase were not given. The CC has requested to direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.55,000/- i.e. 50% of Rs.1,10,000/- deposited by him for 28 fractions and only 14 fractions of first phase were completed. We agree with the claim of CC as only 14 fractions were given to the patient whereas the amount was paid by the CC for 28 fractions. The OP retained the amount of CC as such the OPs are liable to pay simple interest also @ 9% per annum, which is a reasonable rate of interest. The CC suffered mental and physical agony as he was compelled to file the present complaint, which is pending for the more than 3 years. As such, the CC must be compensated on this account. So, we are of the considered opinion that OPs are also liable to pay compensation for mental and physical harassment and also liable to pay litigation expenses.
7.                           In view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is allowed partly and the OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the CC along with simple interest @9% per annum from the date of death of son of CC till the date of realization. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- for mental and physical harassment and also directed to pay Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days on receipt of certified copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the CC and the OPs as per rules. File be returned back to the District Consumer Commission, Mohali for consignment.           

Pronounced:-30.08.2022

                                                                   

 

    (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                                     President

 

 

    (Manjit Singh Bhinder)

                                                                                                     Member

 

               

                                                                            (Shivani Bhargava)

   Member