Delhi

New Delhi

OC/711/2005

Sunder Kanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Baxter (INDIA) Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jul 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.OC/711/05                       Dated:

In the matter of:

MS. SUNDER KANTA,

49, PHUSHPANJALI APARTMENTS,

PLOT NO.10, SECTOR-4,

DWARKA, NEW DELHI-75

 

Also at:

UTRAULA HOUSE, NO.7,

BISHESHWAR NATH ROAD,

LUKNOW-226001            

 

……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1.BAXTER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

204-205 TOLSTOY MARG

NEW DELHI-110001

 

2. BAXTER (INDIA) PVT. LTD,

 ENKAY TOWERS, 5^TH FLOOR,

 UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-5,

 GURGAON-122106

 

3.BAXTER (INDIA) PVT. LTD,

ONE BAXTER PARKWAY,

DF2-2W, DEEFIELD, IL 60015-4625,

U.S.A.

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ORDER

 Member :  Ritu Garodia

The complaint pertains to negligence of OP in regular supply of equipment and medicine i.e continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis.  The facts are that complainant’s son was put on Peritoneal Dialysis on 7.7.2003 in Lucknow due to kidney failure and was recommended by treating doctor to take Peritoneal Dianeal solution of OP through CAPD and catheter was inserted in abdomen for this purpose.  Complainant entered into CAPD scheme with OP on12.9.2003 wherein on a lump sum payment, OP would supply Twin Bags of CAMEX along with ancillary minicamps in which amount would be adjusted whenever patient wishes to terminate the agreement or on demise of patient. The agreement and payment of Rs.3,25,00/- vide Demand Draft is annexed.  The supply of goods was effected from 24.9.2003 till 11.8.2004 for the invoice amount of Rs.2,04,120 (Month wise detail has been annexed at page 53).   The Complainant further states that a clinical coordinator was appointed by OP who suggested certain safety measures and her son was able to lead a normal life till 31.7.2004.  Thereafter Complainant alleges that goods were not supplied in time on January and March, 2004.  The patient had peritonitis on 1.8.2004, which developed due to delay in delivery of goods developed into severe infection and then into acute septicemia.  The Complainant also alleges that “peritonitis” is described as one of adverse reaction in procedures of CAPD.  The patient died on 31.8.2004 wherein he was diagnosed as suffering from DM CESRC C CRF C Septicemia on CAPD in Septic Shock reason of death was also mentioned as “Septic Shock and cardiac respiratory failure.

The Complainant thereafter sent an application for refund of balance amount on 2.9.2004 and OP refunded the amount of Rs.95,880/- vide cheque dated 8.10.2004. The Complainant alleged defect in goods and misguidance of clinical coordinator as reasons for demise of patient as well as demanded compensation for delay of 38 days in refund of balance amount as well as delay in supply of goods in the present complaint.

OP in its version has raised preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction as patient purchased and used the product in Lucknow.  OP further alleged that CAPD procedure was administered by patient by his domestic help in unhygienic condition.  OP also states that adverse reaction due to any medicine/procedure can not be treated as inherent defect.

Perusal of records reveals that Complainant was suffering for peritoneal dialysis and was recommended to CAPD by the treating doctor in Lucknow.  The agreement with OP was signed in Lucknow, goods were supplied in Lucknow and the pertinent expired in Lucknow.  Therefore, this complainant does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Even on merits the Complainant had alleged delay in delivery of goods in January and March which led to infection resulting in untimely death.  However, the Complainant themselves have admitted that the patient was leading a normal life till July, 2004.

Statement of supply of goods by OP has been annexed with the complaint that delivery has been regular till August, 2004, except for few days delay in January and March.  It is very difficult to accept that late delivery by OP in January and March led to infection in August.  The Complainant has not adduced any evidence against misguidance by clinic coordinator nor made the person as party to this proceeding.

The death certificate mentions the diagnosis as DM C ESRC C CRFC septicemia on CAPD in Septic shock.  Which is Diabetes Mellitus with end stage Renal Disease with Chronic Renal failure with Septicemia on CAPD Septic shock. Mere use of word CAPD in diagnosis will not load to the reference of negligence on OPs part in supply of goods. As for the refund of balance amount, the OP’s received intimation on 6.9.2004 and made the draft on 10.10.2004 which is a reasonable time required to process the claim.  Hence, no deficiency is made out on the part of OP and hence complainant is therefore dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 02.07.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER