DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                         Consumer Complaint No.487 of 2015

                                  Date of institution: 23.09.2015                                    Date of decision:    22.03.2017

Lalit Kumar r/o village Behli, Upper, Behli, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi (H.P.).

……..Complainant

Versus

1.   The Medical Superintendent, Ivy Hospital, Sector 71, Mohali, 160071.

2.   Dr. H.S.Pannu, Chief Cardiac Surgeon, Ivy Hospital, Sector 71, Mohali, 160071, Now resident of House No.1006, Sector 36, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties

                        Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President         

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member 

Present:   Shri Prantap Sharma, counsel for the complainant.             Shri Inderdeep Singh, counsel for OP No.1.

          OP No.2 ex-parte.                    

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                   Complainant Lalit Kumar has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.            The complainant was suffering from Triple Vessel disease. He approached OP No.1 and was admitted there for treatment with patient ID No.83132 on 18.08.2013 and went under surgical treatment by OP No.2. The complainant was discharged on 24.08.2013 and was given medicine prescription to be followed as per time schedule advised by OP No.2.  The complainant prudently and diligently followed the said prescription and other advice given by OP No.2 but the pain in the chest was increasing day by day.  In the second week of September the complainant again visited the hospital of OPs for his checkup with the complaint of chest pain.  The complainant was advised to consult Dr. A.Ahuja, Consultant in Interventional Cardiology at IVY hospital. After the medical re-examination, the complainant was shocked to know that there still exists blockage in the vessel of his heart. Dr. A. Ahuja advised the complainant to urgently undergo another surgery with estimated amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. The complainant, thereafter, visited the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital at Shimla and sought the expert opinion of the unit in-charge of the department of cardiology Dr. P.C.Negi, who also advised to undergo heart surgery. Adhering to the advice of Dr. P.C.Negi, the complainant admitted in the said hospital at Shimla on 04.10.2013 and was discharged on 08.10.2013. The complainant had to spend so far approximately Rs.5 lakhs on medical expenses including surgery, medicine, transportation and incidental medical checkups.  The complainant was not operated properly in first surgery by the OPs. However, the OPs with mala-fide intentions did not treat the complainant fully and completely. The said negligent act of OP No.2 in connivance with OP No.1, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant was harassed mentally, physically and had to face huge financial setback. The complainant also served legal notice up on the OPs but they did not even reply to the same. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant which were incurred for his treatment alongwith interest @ 15% per annum, Rs.5,00,000/- as loss of business, Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

3.             Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs, but OP No.2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint despite service. Hence, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.11.2015.

4.             The complaint is contested by OP No.1, who filed the reply. In reply to the complaint, OP No. 1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, unwarranted and not maintainable against OP No.1; the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and the present complaint is flagrant abuse of the process of law and has been filed in order to harass, malign the reputation and blackmail OP No.1.  As regards to the facts of the case, OP No.1 stated that on 16.08.2013 the complainant, hypertensive, diabetes mellitus type II, was admitted in the IVY hospital with C/O chest pain on exertion with ghabrahat for last 5-6 days, which progressed to chest pain at rest. The complainant underwent CART (Coronary Angiography) which revealed Coronary Artery Disease(CAD)-Triple Vessel Disease(TVD) with Left Main Coronary disease, Acute Coronary Syndrome(ACS) and Anterior Wall Myocardial infarction. The risk factors included Hypertension, Type II DM and Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction (LVDD).  On 17.08.2013 the complainant underwent operation CABG off pump on Intra Aortic Ballon Pump (IABP).  At the time of operation the complainant was given four grafts namely left Internal Mannary Artery (IMA) graft to LAD, Left Radial Artery (LRA) grant to OM, PLV (sequential) and RSVG to PDA.  After surgery the complainant responded well to the treatment and was discharged in stable condition on 24.08.2013 with follow up directions.  Thereafter on 03.10.2013 the complainant was brought to IVY Hospital with complaints of angina on exertion III for the past two weeks. After thorough examination and evaluation by Dr. Ankur Ahuja, Coronary Arteriography (CART) was done with revealed native TVD (Triple Vessel Disease).  The complainant was discharged on medication and was advised to review with Dr. Ankur Ahuja in Cardiac OPD of IVY Hospital after one week.  But the complainant did not give any opportunity to OPs to further manage him. Reply to the legal notice of the complainant was given by OP No.1 on 08.08.2014.There is no unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/1, copies of discharge card Ex. C-1, prescription slip Ex. C-2, treatment prescription Ex. C-3, discharge slip Ex. C-4, invoice bills Ex. C-5, legal notice Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. R.K. Suri, Medical Superintendent Ex. OP1/1, angiography report Ex. OP-1, echocardiography report Ex. OP-2, operation notes Ex. OP-3, post-OP status Ex. OP-4, discharge summary Ex. OP-5, angiography report Ex. OP-6, discharge summary Ex. OP-7,  reply to legal notice Ex. OP-8 and closed the evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that when the complainant approached the OPs first time he was thoroughly examined at OP No.1 and the final impression arrived at was ‘Triple Vessel Disease’. He has also argued that accordingly, complainant underwent surgery but again when the complainant went to OP No.1 for check up in the second week of September, it was informed to him that still there exist blockage. The complainant was advised to urgently undergo another surgery.   However, the complainant preferred to go to India Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, at Shimla where he got admitted and was discharged on 08.10.2013.  Learned counsel for the complainant has pleaded that had the OPs properly diagnosed the complainant at the first instance, he would not have to again undergo another surgery within a span of two months. Thus, there is clear cut case of medical negligence on the part of the OPs.

7.             On the other hand learned counsel for  OP No.1 has stated that Coronary Angiography Report and Echocardiography was conducted on the complainant on 16.08.2013 and he underwent operation CABG on 17.08.2013.  Learned counsel has pleaded that the patient responded well to the treatment and was discharged in stable condition on 24.08.2013. The complainant contacted OP No.1 on 03.10.2013 with complaint of angina on exertion III for the past two weeks. After thorough examination, the Coronary Arteriography was done with revealed native TDV (triple Vessel Disease. He further pleaded that complainant was advised to review with Dr. Ankur Ahuja in Cardiac OPD but thereafter the complainant did not give any opportunity to OP No.1 to further take care of him. Thus, as per the counsel for OP No.1, there is no medical negligence and deficiency in service.  Learned counsel for OP No.1 has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others 2010(1) CPJ 29 and decision of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Dr. Sandeep Singh Sandhu Vs. Resham Singh and another 2016(2) CPJ 48.  

8.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and arguments of the parties. On careful we find that the facts of the in Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others (supra) and Dr. Sandeep Singh Sandhu Vs. Resham Singh and another (supra), are distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. The Coronary Angiography Report dated 16.08.2013 Ex.OP-1 shows that the final impression arrived at by the OPs was ‘Triple Vessel Disease’. Accordingly surgery on the complainant was conducted on 17.08.2013. It is mentioned in the operation notes Ex.OP-3 as under:

“Med. Sternotomy, Pericardiotomy, Simunltaneo Harvest LIMA LRA RSVG from left leg. No pericardial fluid. LIMA LAD was done first. Following this distal PLV anastmosis with LRA and use same LRA seq. to distal Om. Anastmosis. Then distal PDA anastmosis with RSVG. Following this both proximal done. Finally procedure was completed. Hemostasis secured. Following protamine administered wound closed in layers over midline. Left pleural and Right pleural and 1 Retro Sternal drains. RV Pacing wire were inserted.”

9.             It is also mentioned in Ex.OP-3 that duration of the surgery was five hours. Thus, the complainant might have undergone tremendous pain during the surgery period.  The complainant was discharged on 24.08.2013. However, when the complainant again contacted OP No.1 on 03.10.2013 his Coronary Angiography was conducted and as per report dated 03.10.2013 Ex.OP-6 the final impression was ‘Native Triple Vessel Disease, Patient Grafts, LIMA Distal Anastomatic Disease. The complainant was advised to urgently undergo surgery again.  Instead of getting the surgery conducted, the complainant went to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital at Shimla where he got the surgery conducted. Had the OPs thoroughly examined the complainant at the first instance on 16.08.2013, he would not have undergone the surgery again in the Hospital at Shimla. This shows that the OPs were negligent while conducting diagnosis of the complainant on 16.08.2013.  Due to negligence of the OPs, the complainant had to undergo surgery again in a Hospital at Shimla, which has caused mental tension and harassment besides financial loss to the complainant. Thus, we hold that the complainant is entitled to refund of the expenses of his treatment with the OPs besides compensation for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

10.           Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, we direct the OPs to pay refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,90,481/- (Rs. Two lacs ninety thousand four hundred eighty one only) i.e. the amount paid by the complainant to the OPs towards treatment expenses as per Ex.C-5.  The complainant is also entitled to sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) for mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) for litigation expenses. 

                The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard 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.

22.03.2017

                                                                     (A.P.S.Rajput)

                                                   President

                                                      (Mrs.Natasha Chopra)

                                                                        Member