BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Manjeet Kaur wife of Surjeet Singh, r/o Village Sahouli, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh (through its Director), Chandigarh.

2.       Dr. Shyam, Department of CTVS, PGIMER, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                              PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                       MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh. Siddharth Gulati, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Harish Sharma,                                Counsel for Complainant.

                        Sh. Hitesh Pandit, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant took her son Kuldeep Singh, who was suffering from heart problem since 2007, to PGIMER, for treatment. The patient was referred to OP No.2, who after check-up, advised to arrange for Rs.3 lacs, for insertion of the valves as there was blockage in the heart of the patient. Being poor lady, the complainant was able to arrange Rs.1,50,000/- from different Government Agencies and Non-Government Organizations, including Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which was deposited with OP No.1 on the instructions of OP No.2.

                   It is further stated that the complainant arranged Rs.1,85,000/- from her near & dears for the treatment of her son. That in the month of December, 2009, the OP No.2 started checking the patient and finally on 15.1.2009, the patient was admitted for operation. That on 19.1.2009, the OP No.2 asked the complainant to arrange for the surgical disposable and stunts from her own funds. In order to save the life of her son, the complainant purchased the surgical disposable as directed by OP No.2 worth Rs.1,37,909/- vide Annexures C-7 & C-8.

                   It is further the case of the complainant that on 19/20.1.2009, the condition of her son started deteriorating and despite repeated calls, the patient was not attended, so he breathed his last on 20.1.2010. Hence, this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3.                The OPs in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that after evaluation, the patient & attendants were explained about the disease. They were also told that the patient had to undergo double valve replacement. The patient was asked to arrange Rs.1,50,000/-.

                   It is further replied that the answering OPs recommended the said patient to get the financial help from National Illness Assistance Fund, from where the assistance of Rs.50,000/- was provided and the patient opted to get TTK Chitra valve for his operation. However, when the patient received additional assistance from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and Public Donation, he changed his mind to get the other prosthetic valve, which was costlier than TTK Chitra.

                   It is further replied that the Utilization Certificate requiring SJM mechanical valve and supply order was placed. However, it is admitted that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited with the PGI.

                   It is further replied that out of Health Ministers Discretionary Grant, an amount of Rs.20,000/- has received in Private Grant Cell from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare vide Cheque dated 3.2.2009 and the patient’s attendants failed to approach the Poor Patients Assistance Cell with identity proof, so the cheque was returned to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.

                 It is further replied that the patient was irregular in visiting the hospital. However on 11.12.2009, after thorough examination, the patient was referred to    Dr.Harkant Singh but he did not attend to him. The patient was also advised to visit the hospital on 8.1.2009 but he did not present himself before the operating surgeon and came to OPD on 15.1.2010 with the complaint of mild epigastric pain. It is further replied that the surgical items were purchased by the Medical Superintendent and Director, PGIMER, whereas the complainant is claiming that the said items were purchased by her, so the said assertion of the complainant with regard to purchase of surgical items is wrong, as such denied. The treating doctor never advised the complainant to purchase any surgical items.

                 It is further replied that after admission of the patient on 15.1.2010, the investigation and medical optimization of patient was started in order to prepare him for operation. The patient was a case of Rheumatic Heart Disease, Mitral Stenosis, Mitral Regurgitation, Moderate Aortic Regurgitation, Mild Aortic Stenosis, Tricuspid Regurgitation with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The patient had fever/preclude heart valve operation. The attempts were made to make patient infection free, so that the double valve (Mitral and Aortic valves) replacement may be done. The patient was also shifted to CTVS intensive care in the early morning of 19.1.2010 for intensive care of heart rate and vital parameters.  

                 It is further replied that the patient was continuously monitored by a team of doctors led by operating surgeon OP No.2. The patient had deranged coagulation profile and had atrial fibrillation with fast ventricular rate at midnight, so he was put on mechanical ventilator. On 20.1.2010 the patient had acute onset of ventricular arrhythmia with hemodynamic instability. The patient died on 20.1.2010 despite of all resuscitative measures.  All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6.              The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that OP No.1 was issued a certificate for the expenditure of the treatment dated 21.7.2008 – Annexure C-1 and OP No.2 also recommended OP No.1 for the financial assistance out of National Illness Assistance Fund qua Annexure C-2. It was contended that the complainant arranged Rs.1,50,000/- from different Government Agencies and Non-Government Organizations. The complainant arranged Rs.1,85,000/- on interest from her near & dears for the treatment of her son. The learned Counsel for the complainant further argued that on 19.1.2010, the OP No.2 directed the complainant to arrange for the surgical disposable and the stunts for the heart surgery of the patient from her own funds instead of Government Agencies and Non- Government Organizations. It was submitted that the complainant in order to save the life of her son arranged the money by borrowing and, thereafter, purchased the original disposables from Kumar Brothers (Chemists) Pvt. Ltd, SCO No.7 & 8, Sector 11, Chandigarh and Cardio Medical Devices, SCO No.11, Sector 10 of Rs.1,28,277/- and Rs.9,632/- (total Rs.1,37,909/-) vide Annexures C-7 and C-8.

7.              It was further argued that the complainant approached OP No.2 for the refund of Rs.1,37,909/- spent on the surgical disposables & stunts and Rs.1,50,000/- received by OP No.1 from Government Agencies and Non- Government Organizations but the OPs have failed to refund the said amount. It was further argued that OP No.1 has illegally withheld Rs.1,37,909/- and Rs.1,50,000/-, so the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10 lacs. The OPs are also liable to refund the amount of Rs.2,87,909/- as the son of the complainant had died without being operated upon.

8.              It was further argued that the OPs are trying to take advantage as the bills Annexures C-7 and C-8 have been issued in the name of OP No.1. The complainant is an illiterate lady, who paid the amount from her sources but the bills Annexures C-7 and C-8 had been issued in the name of OP No.1.

9.              Now the point for consideration before this Fora is whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.1,37,909/- allegedly spent on the surgical items & stunts and Rs.1,50,000/- received from the Government Agencies and Non-Government Organizations. The answer to this is in the negative.

10.            During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the complainant admitted that the bills Annexures C-7 and C-8 have been issued in the name of OP No.1. He has raised the plea that the complainant is an illiterate lady, who paid the entire amount from her sources but the bills were issued in the name of OP No.1. To prove the said fact, the complainant has not produced any evidence. It is settled proposition of law, that when documentary evidence is available, the oral evidence is not admissible. Since the complainant has admitted that the bills Annexures C-7 and C-8 have been issued in the name of OP No.1 for Rs.1,28,277/- + Rs.9,632/- (total Rs.1,37,909/-), therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that the amount has been paid by her.

11.            The Estimate Certificate – Annexure R-1 clearly states that the complainant was advised to arrange Rs.1,50,000/-. The Estimate Certificate was given to the patient on 21.7.2008 – Annexure R-2. That on the recommendation of the treating doctor & HOD, CTVS an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was also sanctioned out of National Illness Assistance Fund and supply order was placed on 13.8.2008 – Annexure R-3. The OP No.1 issued Utilization  Certificate for TTK Chitra valve – Annexure R-4 and supply order for TTK Chitra value was sent. The patient received additional assistance from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, so he changed his mind to get prosthetic valve, which was costlier than TTK Chitra, so another Utilization Certificate requiring SJM mechanical valve – Annexure R-7 was issued and another supply order – Annexure R-2 was placed. The Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare had made payment of Rs.20,000/- from Health Ministers Discretionary Grant (HMDG) – Annexure   R-9, which was received through cheque No.299406 dated 3.2.2009 in the month of February, 2009 – Annexure R-10 but the attendants of the patient had not approached the Private Grant Cell till 27.7.2009, so the cheque of Rs.20,000/- was returned to Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirmal Bhawan, New Delhi – Exhibit R-11.

12.            Now it is proved on record that the patient got the financial assistance on the recommendation of the OPs. It is also proved on record that on 9.3.2009, the complainant approached to OP No.2 and informed that she has received Rs.1,50,000/- from Government Agencies and Non-Government Organizations. The OP No.2 operating surgeon issued a letter to the Additional Medical Superintendent for the purchase of surgical disposables – Annexure R-15.

13.            The surgical items were purchased by the Medical Superintendent and Director, PGIMER from Kumar Brothers (Chemists) Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.7 & 8, Sector 11-D, Chandigarh and Cardio Medical Devices, SCO No.11, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh respectively qua Annexures R-20 and R-21 against supply order Annexures R-8 & R-18 respectively.

14.            It is an admitted case that the operation on the person of the patient could not be conducted as prior to it he died despite of proper care and medical assistance.

15.            Now it is proved on record that the bills of Rs.1,37,909/- was in the name of OP No.1 and not in the name of the complainant. Therefore, it can legitimately be concluded that the surgical items and stunt was purchased by OP No.1 for Rs.1,37,909/- and not by the complainant, as evidenced by bills Annexures C-7 & C-8.

16.            Undoubtedly the unspent amount of Rs.1,50,000/- received from Government Agencies and Non-Government Organizations cannot be ordered to be refunded to the complainant,  as the same is required to be returned to the respective organizations, who had donated it. It will not be out of place to state that the complainant is demanding the refund of Rs.1,37,909/- allegedly spent by him on surgical items for the treatment of her son but since the bills of the same are in the name of PGI as evidenced by the bills, so the refund of Rs.1,37,909/- cannot be allowed.

17.            As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainant is not entitled for the refund of Rs.1,37,909/-, and Rs.1,50,000/- received from the Government Agencies and Non-Government Organizations as discussed in para (supras). The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.  

  18.             Certified copies of this order be sent to the   parties free of charge. The file be consigned.