DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/373/2015
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Sh. Mohd. Akhtar
S/o Late Sh. Mohd. Bashir,
R/o 1330, Laddhawala, Gali No. 5,
District Muzaffarnagar
Uttar Pradesh-251002. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Medical Superintendent,
G.B. Pant Hospital,
1, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
Dr. V.K. Trehan
G.B. Pant Hospital,
1, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002. …..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Coram : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Dr. R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
1. Sh. Mohd. Akhtar (in short Complainant) filed instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, as amended up to date alleging therein he is a senior citizen and is taking treatment in G.B. Pant Hospital (in short OP Hospital) for the last 5 years. The doctors conducted his angiography for more than six times due to which he developed heart ailments. On his request Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Delhi sanctioned Rs. 1,00,000/- for meeting his medical expenses. He was admitted in OP Hospital on 26.04.2011. He was operated on 30.04.2011. Stent implant of a low standard was used which caused him pain in heart as well as chest. Although complainant was sanctioned money of Rs.1,00,000/- but OP Hospital spent only Rs. 35,000/- on low quality stent. It is criminal breach of trust on part of the hospital. Complainant is not in proper physical state now to undergo open heart surgery nor has money for the same. By using low quality stent implant OP caused immense loss of blood and pain. Complainant has sought direction to the OP to replace the stent with the best quality using the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- sanctioned by the government for his treatment.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP who appeared and contested the claim and filed reply wherein it is alleged that the complaint is without any cause of action. It is stated that as the complainant was unwilling for surgery angiography was done with his consent to avoid surgery. It is denied that low quality stent was used. It is stated that complainant who was unwilling for surgery was taken up for attempt to re vascularise his left anterior descending artery, that left anterior descending artery is the most important artery and the drug eluting stent was to be implanted in the left anterior descending artery, that drug eluting stent was not to be deployed for the Diagonal artery which is a much smaller branch compared to the main left anterior descending artery and that during the procedure when the wire was not negotiating through totally occluded left anterior descending artery and when diagonal flow decreased, in this emergent situation diagonal flow was quickly restored by using a bare metal stent yet producing the result similar to the one by drug eluting stent, thus both saving the cost and salvaging the emergency situation. It is also stated that bailing out emergency situation using a stent costing less to the government and the Complainant and yet producing results similar to the one which could have been produced by using costlier stent speaks about competence and cost consciousness of the team rather than incompetence and cheating as wrongly alleged by the Complainant. Further it is stated that had a costlier stent been used, the Complainant would have been left with no funds and that by saving money for the complainant, OP tried to help him so that the saved funds could be used for his surgery. It is admitted that the complainant had deposited a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Rashtriya Arogya Nidhi in the Patient welfare fund of G.B. Pant Hospital New Delhi, towards procurement of stent to be used for his procedure / treatment. A part of the fund is stated to have been used towards bare metal stent. It is stated that the exact amount which is left unused is to be told by the purchase department of the hospital. The allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust are denied. It is submitted that the most appropriate stent was deployed successfully during the emergent situation which had saved the life of the complainant and also saved money of the government. It is also stated that the patient was last seen in good physical state to undergo surgery and was therefore advised to undergo surgery. It is further submitted that no surgeon or anaesthesia doctor ever declared him that he was not fit to undergo surgery. It is also OP’s case that amount sanctioned by the government was used for purchase of a stent which was duly approved in an open tender by a technical expert committee and that the stent has been found to be functioning perfectly well and that there is no breach of trust on part of the OP. It is further stated that there was negligible blood loss and minimal pain under local anaesthesia.
3. Parties have adduced evidence by way of affidavits. Parties have filed written arguments.
4. Grievances of the complainant are as under:
- Doctors conducted his angiography for more than 6 times due to which he is suffering from heart ailments.
- There was immense loss of blood and it cause him pain.
- He was able to get fund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the government whereas only Rs. 35,000/- was spent by the doctors on the stent and there is criminal breach of trust qua the balance amount.
- The doctors have put an inferior stent which has caused deterioration in his health.
- He is not in physical state to undergo an open heart surgery now nor does he have money for the same.
5. It is not proved by the complainant that the stent deployed by the OP was of inferior or low quality or that the same has caused any damage to his health. It is denied by OP that there was immense loss of blood and pain. It is submitted by OP that there was negligible blood loss and minimal pain and that the stent is working properly causing no damage to heath of the complainant.
6. Complainant has not placed on record any document which may indicate that repeated angiography has caused or aggravated his heart ailment. He has further failed to prove that doctors used an inferior/low quality stent. OP has pleaded in its written statement that the stent was approved by its technical expert committee. It is stated that stent was found to be functioning perfectly well without any defect whatsoever. It is also pleaded that chest pain cannot be due to a stent which shows excellent functioning even long after it was deployed.
7. Complainant has prayed for direction to the OP to replace the stent with the best quality one using the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- sanctioned by the government for the treatment of his heart ailment.
8. Complainant has pleaded that he is not in a physical state to go through an open heart surgery nor does he has money for the same. OP in its written statement has pleaded that it is not medically advisable to even think of replacing a stent which is functioning in an excellent way, when tested on check angiography and that too long after it was implanted, confirming both immediate as well as durable excellent long term result of the stent implanted on the complainant. When OP Hospital is clearly pleading that complainant is fit for open heart surgery and that replacement of a well functioning stent is not medically advisable and further when there is no evidence to prove that stent implanted by OP was of low quality or that it has caused any damage to the health of the complainant, as alleged by him, prayer of the compliant to direct OP to replace the stent is rejected. Complainant is directed to approach OP within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order for open heart surgery or any other treatment which is medically considered most appropriate for the ailment of the complainant for which OP will not charge anything from the complainant as cost of the stent was only Rs. 35,000/- and there is a balance of Rs. 65,000/- with OP. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on day of , 2019.
