District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 26/2022.
Date of Institution:13.01.2022.
Date of Order:27.03.2023.
Ranbir Singh son of late Shri Kanwar Pal Singh, resident of village & P.O. Kaurali Tehsil Ballabgarh, District, Faridabad .
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Metro Heart Institute Multispeciality Hospital, Sector-16A, Faridabad through its Chief Medical Officer.
2. Chief Medical Officer of Metro Heart Institute Multispeciality Hospital, Secator-16A, Faridabad.
…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Kr. Inderpal Bhati , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Satender Adhana , , counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
Ms. Shivangi Bajpai, counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the father of the complainant was Ex-Serviceman and was retired from Rank of Subedar from Second Batlian of Rajputana Riffle Regiment of Indian Army bearing NO. JC-112955P and was having ECHS card No. DL1000002306058 which was issued from the Govt and the pension was fixed as Rs.40,358/- at present. After its requirement the price of Hony Subedar Major was given to the father of the complainant. On dated 03.11.2021 the health of father of the complainant was abnormal due to vomiting at about 9.30 .am. and in this regard the complainant and family members went in CHC hospital Kaurali for treatment purpose and where the father of the complainant was treated by the doctor namely Rajesh Bhardwaj and test was also conducted of the father of the complainant and in the test report the Dengu fever was showing to the father of the complainant and in this regard the doctor of CHC Kaurali suggested to the complainant to treat the father of the complainant to any other hospital. The father of the complainant had been referred to another hospital. The complainant and his family members had taken him in Metro Hospital Sector-16, Faridabad on 0.11.2021 at about 2.00 p.m. for the best treatment and showed him to the doctor in the emergency ward of the opposite party’s hospital seeing the critical condition of the patient and doctor advised to admit the father of the complainant in ICU immediately and also advised to prepare the admission file of the patient from cash counter upon which the complainant had enquired from the said doctor about the facility of said disease, then the doctor of the hospital i.e opposite parties disclosed to the complainant that all the facilities were available in the hospital for the treatment of the father of the complainant and told the complainant to get prepare the admission file of patient, thereafter the complainant had gone to cash counter and provided the details of the patient to the representative of cash counter and requested him to prepare the admission file of the patient immediately, so the patient could be admit in the hospital hurry. The representative of the cash counter of the opposite party had told to the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- upon which the complainant had provided the ECHS card to the representative that his father was an ex-serviceman from Indian Army, thereafter the representative of the opposite prty had disclosed to the complainant that ventilator and bad was not available in the hospital and advised to the complainant to take his patient in any other hospital for the treatment and in this regard the complainant asked about the representative of the opposite party that there was no ventilator and bad was not available then why were they demanding the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and after seeing ECHS card the said representative was saying that ventilator was not available in the hospital and the complainant also enquired from the said hospital that govt. will not pay the treatment charges to the opposite parties who had prepared the ECHS card of his father. In such dispute such representative of cash counter had told the complainant to talk with Manager of the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant visited the manager of the opposite parties in his office and requested him to start the treatment of his father, whose condition was dark in critical.. But the opposite parties did not give any response and refused the legitimate request of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant had recommended to the manager of the opposite parties by local MLA to start the treatment of the father of the complainant by way of using of the ECHS card. On the recommendation and assurance of said local MLA to the opposite parties that if any difficulty would arise in clearing the bill of the father of the complainant, then the local MLA would make the bill amount to the opposite party from his own pocket. After great efforts the opposite parties admitted the father of the complainant on 3.11.2021 at about 3.35 p.m. During this period, the health of the father of the complainant was totally critical and brain hammerage. During the treatment period, the father of the complainant had been expired. Due to the negligency on the part of the opposite parties, the treatment of the father of the complainant could not start in time when the father of the complainant went in the hospital at about 2.00 p.m. in conscious condition by the complainant. If the treatment started in time the father of the complainant was alive. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) make an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-on account of mental tension, agony, harassment due to the negligency on the part of the opposite parties and in this regard the father of the complainant namely Kanwar Pal Singh had been expired in the hospital.
b) pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the patient was admitted in the hospital on 03.11.2021 and obtained treatment at the hospital under the care of the team lead by Dr. Tarun. The opposite party No.1 was having policy name error and omission – Medical establishment issued by M/s. Future General India Insurance Company ltd., having its office 801 & 802, 8th floor, Tower C, embassy 24*7 Park, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli West Mumbai, Maharashtra in the name of M/s. etro Specialty Hospitals Private Limited, Sector-16A, Faridabad bearing Policy No. L0176267-E001 valid from 20.02.2021 to 19.02.2022. Without prejudice of the merits of the case, it was submitted that in case this Hon’ble District Commission may come to the conclusion that there was error or omission on the part of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 then in that M/s. Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. Having its office 801 & 802, 8th floor, Tower C, Embassy 24*7 Park, LBS Marg, Vikhroli – west Mumbai, Maharashtra might be made solely liable to make the payment of the amount of damages or compensation that might be award in favour of the complainant as the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 were insured with the said insurance company. The complainant was guilty of concealment of material factas to the opposite parties and as such not entitled for any indulgence from this Hon’ble Court. The real facts were that the patient was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital on 03.11.2021 with known case of HTN was admitted in with complaint of fever sine 4 to 5 days for which he was taking treatment from local practitioner and got investigated which showed platelet count 146000, dengue NSI positive on 02.11.2021. On 03.11.2021 morning he developed altered sensorium and was brought to opposite party No.2 hospital on arrival in emergency, GCS was E1V1M4, so he was intubated. He later on developed cardiac arrest, so CPR was done, ROSC achieved and patient was shifted to MICU for further management on ventilator support. NCCT head was done which showed acute subdural hematoma alongwith right cerebral convexity with mass effect and midline shift with age related diffuse cerebral and cerebellar atrophy and supratentorial chronic ischemic changes. Initial blood investigation done Hb-10.7, TLC 3940, Platelet count-17000, KFT (Urea -28, Creatinine – 0.9, S. Na+-135, K+-5.2)PT/INR- 13.6/1.00, LFT (s. Total Bilirubin-1.1, SGOT-183, SGPT-80) S. Alkaline Phosphatase-377, Total protein-5.5, dengue NS1 antigen-positive, Dengue virus IgG and IGM-negative, S.calcium-8.3 blood group “B” positive, ABG showed severe metabolic acidosis patient development hypotension with continuously increased requirement of vasopressor. Patient progressively became anuric so nephrologist consultation was done and advice followed.
The treating doctor and staff of the opposite party clearly explained the condition/serious illness of the patient to the complainant & other family members in orally as well as written in hindi. The complainant and other family members after understanding and read over the, the condition/poor prognosis of the patient signed the same.
“Hamen hamare marij ki atyant gambhir halatke bare mein kafi vistar se bataya gaya hai hamen yah pata hai ki hamare marij ko dengu hai avem dimag mein bleeding hui hai jiske kara se marij atyant gehri behoshi/coma ki avastha mein hai hamare marif ka blood pressure bhi atyant kam hai (Hypotension) avem unhen saans lene ki machine per rakha gaya hai hamen pata hai ki sabhi prakarke ilaaj se bad bhi marij ki halat mein sudhar hone athva unki jaan bachai ja sakne ki sambhavna atyant kam hai hamare marij ke upchar ke bare mein hamen second opinion Lene athva marij ko upchar ke liye kisi anya aspataal mein shift karvane ki bhi purnata swatantrata Di gai hai marij ki halat mein sudhar nahin hone athva unki mrutyu hone ki dasha mein ham Metro Hospital athva uske chiktsakon ko doshi nahin the hraenge”
The opposite party hospital had regularly admitting the ECHS and other government panel patient without taking any money as per the panel guidelines/MOU. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Metro Heart Institute Multispeciality Hospital with the prayer to: a) make an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-on account of mental tension, agony, harassment due to the negligency on the part of the opposite parties and in this regard the father of the complainant namely Kanwar Pal Singh had been expired in the hospital. b) pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Ranbir Singh, Ex.C-1 - prescription from Samudhayik Health Centre, Ex.C-2 – l list, Ex.C-3 – contacts list, Ex.C-4 – emergency letter, Ex.C-5 – case summary, Ex.C-6 – emergency referral form, Ex.C-7 - Metro Heart Institute 400 Bedded biggest super specialty hospital of Faridabad, Ex.C-8 to 18 – tests, Ex.C-19 – Death certificate, Ex.C-20 – final bill, Ex.C-21 - letter to police chowki incharge, Ex.C-22 – letter to Hon’ble Prime Minister, Ex. C-23 – statement of Rakesh, Ex.C-24 – Amod, Ex.C-25 – Room Charges, Ex.C-26 - bank statement, Ex.C-27 – Memo No. (Comp-796) -3P.M.1-2022, Ex.C-28 - letter dated 06.08.2022.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Dr. Manjinder Bhatti, Ex.R-1 – Initial Nursing Assessment – Emergency,, Ex.R2 – Consent form for procedure, Ex.R3 – C.T.Scan Consent Form, Ex.R4 – NCCT Head,, Ex.R5 – Informed Written Prognosis, Ex.R-6 - Very High Pick consent for the treatment and explanation of critical conditions of the patients , Ex.R-7 – Consent for patient in the ICU, Ex.R-8 – Consent form for HIV Testing, Ex.R9 – Consent Form for Procedural, Ex.R10 – Consent for Restraint, Ex.R-11 – Consent Form, Ex.R-12 – Tests, Ex.R-17 to 19– Daily Plan of care for doctor, Ex.R-20 – CBC (wholeblood), Ex.R-21 colly)– Enquiry Report.
6 As per enquiry report vide Ex.R-21 A Medical Board comprising Dr. Yogesh Gupta-ASMO, District Civil Hosptal, Fbd, Dr. Mohit Aggarwal, SMO, District Civil Hospital, Faridabad, Dr. Atul Aggarwal, NIMA President, Faridabad. Dr. Dinesh Gupta, IMA President, Faridabad, Dr. Vikas Goel, SMO, Nominee of PMO, District Civil Hospital, Faridabad & Dr. Sushil Kumar Ahlawat, Dy. C.S. Nominee of Civil Surgeon, O/o Civil Surgeon, Faridabad was constituted and said Medical Board submitted its report dated 16.09.2022. Enquiry members are of the opinion that “there is no medical negligence has been found on the part of treating doctors of Metro Hospital, Faridabad and patient was treated as per standard treatment protocol.”
7. The complainant has also not led any cogent evidence to prove the factum that doctors of opposite parties hospital were negligent and careless in treating the complainant. On the basis of opinion of medical board and in the absence of any cogent evidence merely on the basis of presumption, it cannot be deemed that there was any negligence or carelessness or deficient service on the part of opposite parties.
8. As such, neither any deficiency in service nor medical negligence on the part of opposite parties is proved in the present complaint.
9. Resultantly, the present complaint is meritless and the same is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 27.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
