Haryana

Karnal

CC/37/2020

Kusum Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rama Super Speciality & Crtical Care Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Balvinder Singh

31 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 37 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.16.01.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:31.08.2022

 

Kusum Malhotra, aged 56 years wife of Shri Parth Sarthi, House no.341, Sector-8, Urban Estate, Karnal Aadhaar no.2307 3832 8718.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Rama Super Specialty & Critical Care Hospital through its Director Dr. Kamal Kishore, resident of Building no.8, Wazir Chand Colony, Model Town Karnal, District Karnal.

 

2.     Dr. Kamal Kishore, Managing Director (internal medicines) Rama Super Specialty & Critical Care Hospital, Building no.8, Wazir Chand Colony, Model Town Karnal, District Karnal.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Sh. Balvinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Sh. Rajan Gupta, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

        

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 11.06.2019 complainant felt some breathlessness and suffocation and she alongwith her husband went to the hospital of OPs where OP no.2 attended the complainant and after medical examination instructed for test of angiography. OP no.2 told the complainant that there is some serious problem in the heart and no treatment can be started without angiography test. OP no.2 created a fear in the mind of complainant to get the angiography tests immediately without any delay or any further consultation or taking any second opinion from the other doctor. Complainant conducted the angiography test in the laboratory of OP no.1. After the test OP no.2 opined that there is a 90% blockage in the artery and to remove the blockage stent in one of the artery is immediately required to save the life of complainant. It is further averred that the report of the angiography test was neither provided nor shown to the complainant or her attendants by the OP no.2 for the reasons best known to him. As per instruction and advise given by the OP no.2 the complainant gave her consent for further treatment. The OPs told the complainant that there are different types of stent having different prices and told that the best stent is having the price of Rs.23,625/-and having longer durability. The complainant and her relatives required the OPs to provide the best medical treatment and best coronary artery stent. The OPs placed the stent in the coronary artery of the complainant having its no.9041741 mark SIENCE V 2.75x28mm having its price Rs.23625/- The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 13.06.2019 and she spent an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- on her treatment. After discharge from the hospital the health of complainant did not improve. Complainant visited the OPs time and again but her condition was not improved. Thereafter, complainant visited the Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh New Delhi and consulted the doctor there. The attending doctor in the Fortis Hospital after thorough medical examination and lab. reports came to the conclusion that the decision to put the stent in the artery of the complainant was not essential and it was a hasty decision of the attending doctor i.e. OP no.2. The attending doctor of Fortis Hospital was reluctant to give the opinion in writing, although orally the doctor described the procedure adopted by the OP no.2, as negligent and unfair. After the consultation of the doctor in Fortis Hospital, complainant demanded the entire record of her treatment which was partly provided after various visits. The complainant was surprised to know that the price of the stent is only of Rs.12000/-. OP no.2 misdiagnoses the disease of the complainant and had given wrong treatment to grab the money. OP no.2 played with the life of complainant by inserting the sub-standard and inferior quality of sent in her artery. The Complainant is presently taking the treatment from Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. The negligence of the OP no.2 is serious one which poses a serious threat to the life of the complainant. OPs put the inferior quality stent in the artery and charged the price of stent of the best quality. OP no.2 also gave the wrong advice regarding the treatment and placing the stent in the artery, although the blockage was removable with the medicines. The said act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unethical, unprofessional and deficiency in service. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 10.12.2019 through her counsel upon the OPs but it also did not yield any result. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.19 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12 per annum from 12.06.2019 till its realization and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 is a well-equipped, well established and state of art hospital of the locality. OP no.2 is a well qualified and a reputed doctor, with substantial good will and experience of long standing successful medical practice. Patient Kusum came in life-threatening emergency to the hospital of OPs with Acute Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction. Patient was in severe chest pain. All evidences were suggestive of major heart attack (IWMI), are well attached in file (ECG showed ST Elevation, Troponin-1>10.0). Myocardial Infarction is a life threatening condition and that is why patient party were explained regarding this. To highlight not only relatives but even doctors are scared of any unwanted complications that may endanger patient’s life during course of myocardial infarction (Major heat attack)at any given time. As per scientific guideline hospital presentation to opening of culprit vessel should no longer be more than 90 minutes to achieve best results and save patient life. Hospital did best efforts to perform this procedure within this time frame after due consent of patient relatives despite odd working hours (admission time 10.25 p.m.). It was very well explained and taken as written consent in local language that doctor may opt option for other brand/quality of stent depending on the need of patient during ongoing procedure and it was best available stent depending on size of her vessel. Drug eluting Stent deployed in coronary artery of the patient is approved by US FDA, an agency that release licence only after reviewing results of multiple international randomized control trials. The procedure was successful with very good results and patient was discharged happily without any complication. Stent deployed was of Abott Vascular (Xience) which is biggest supplier and most reliable brand in stent company Xience-V is stent with US FDA/CE and DCGI approved. Stent belongs to Xience family which is landmark implant in coronary implants and has multiple scientific trials suggesting non inferior to all stents. Invoice of stent was given to patient without any resistance from account department. It is mere a clerical mistake only in bill, which was orally informed to the patient party. Since Box of stent was carrying different MRP. OPs team did best to save the patient life. Health of patient may take 2-3 months to get stabilize and at no time patient was misguided and patient attended two regular follow-ups without any grievance and significant clinical complaint. As per record submitted by OPs, patient also consulted other Doctor of great repute Professor JC Mohan-Consultant Emeritus, Fortis Hospital Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi on 23.11.2019, the records of which clearly shows that patient complaint are due to Anxiety and gastritis problem and is in class 1 symptoms from cardiac (heart) angle-scientifically class 1 means that patient was established heart disease but now free of any symptoms related to heart disease. It is further pleaded that n o doctor at anywhere told that there is any negligence on the part of the OPs. Everything was done diligently, prudently, with utmost due care and caution. There is no negligence, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of stent bill amounting to Rs.23625/- Ex.C2, copy of stent bill amounting to Rs.12000/- Ex.C3, copy of medical bill of Rs.1,10,000/-Ex.C4, copy of prescription slip Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, copy of discharge certificate Ex.C7, copy of lab. and medicines bill Ex.C8 to Ex.C13, copy of legal notice Ex.C14, postal receipt Ex.C15 and closed the evidence on 23.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Kamal Kishore Ex.RW1/A, copy of treatment record of complainant Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 18.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that on 11.06.2019 complainant felt some breathlessness and suffocation, she went to the hospital of OPs where OP no.2 after medical examination instructed for test of angiography. Complainant conducted the angiography test. After the test OP no.2 opined that there is a 90% blockage in the artery and to remove the blockage stent in one of the artery is immediately required to save the life of complainant. The report of the angiography test was neither provided nor shown to the complainant. The OPs told the complainant that there are different types of stent and told that the best stent is having the price of Rs.23,625/-. The OPs placed the stent in the coronary artery of the complainant having its price Rs.23625/- The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 13.06.2019 and she spent an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- on her treatment. After discharge from the hospital the health of complainant was not improved and she visited the OPs time and again but her condition was not improved. Thereafter, complainant visited the Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh New Delhi where the attending doctor in the said Hospital, after thorough medical examination and lab. reports came to the conclusion that the decision to put the stent in the artery of the complainant was not essential. After the consultation of the doctor in Fortis Hospital, complainant demanded the entire record of her treatment which was partly provided after various visits. The complainant was surprised to know that the price of the stent is only of Rs.12000/-. OP no.2 misdiagnosed the disease of the complainant and given wrong treatment to grab the money. OP no.2 played with the life of complainant by inserting the sub-standard and inferior quality of sent in her artery. OPs put the inferior quality stent in the artery and charged the price of stent of the best quality. OP no.2 also gave the wrong advice regarding the treatment and placing the stent in the artery, although the blockage was removable with the medicines and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that OP no.1 is a well-equipped, well established and state of art hospital of the locality. OP no.2 is a well qualified and a reputed doctor. Complainant came in life-threatening emergency to the hospital of OPs with Acute Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction. Complainant was in severe chest pain. During course of myocardial infarction (Major heat attack), hospital presentation to opening of culprit vessel should no longer be more than 90 minutes to achieve best results and save patient life. Hospital did best efforts to perform this procedure within this time. The procedure was successful with very good results and patient was discharged happily without any complication. Stent deployed was of Abott Vascular (Xience) which is biggest supplier and most reliable brand in stent company Xience-V is stent with US FDA/CE and DCGI approved. Stent belongs to Xience family which is landmark implant in coronary implants and has multiple scientific trials suggesting non inferior to all stents. Invoice of stent was given to patient without any resistance from account department. It was merely a clerical mistake only in bill, which was orally informed to the patient party. OPs team did best to save the patient life. As per record submitted by OPs, patient also consulted other Doctor of great repute Professor JC Mohan-Consultant Emeritus, Fortis Hospital Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi on 23.11.2019, the records of which clearly show that patient complaint are due to Anxiety and gastritis problem and is in class 1 symptoms from cardiac (heart) angle-scientifically class 1 means that patient was established heart disease but now free of any symptoms related to heart disease and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, on 11.06.2019 complainant got admitted in the hospital of OPs with the complaint of some breathlessness. It is also admitted that test of angiography was conducted by the OPs of the complainant. It is also admitted OPs have charged Rs.1,10,000/- for treatment including the cost of the stent of Rs.23625/-.

11.           As per the version of the OPs, complainant came in life threatening emergency in the hospital. The complainant was in severe chest pain. All evidences were suggestive of major heart attack.  After conducting the required tests, it was found that there is a blockage in the artery and to remove the blockage stent in one of the artery is required and OPs have rightly implanted the stent in the artery of the complainant to save her life.

12.           As per the version of the complainant, there was no need to implant the stent and OPs have wrongly implanted the stent just to grab the money and also illegally charged Rs.1,10,000/- from the complainant including cost of the stent as Rs.23625/- instead of Rs.12000/- i.e. actual cost of the stent.

13.           As per version of complainant after discharged from the hospital, the health of complainant did not improve. Therefore, she visited the Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh New Delhi and consulted the doctor where the attending doctor in the Fortis Hospital after thorough medical examination and laboratory reports came to the conclusion that the decision to implant the stent in the artery of the complainant was not essential.  The onus to prove her version lies upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove her version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The case of the complainant is based upon the oral evidence and she has failed to place even a single document or affidavit of said doctor on record in order to prove her version. Furthermore, whether the stent required or not, requires expert doctor’s opinion but complainant has failed to place on file any expert opinion. Thus, the act of the OPs does not reflect negligence in implanting the stent.

14.           It is evident from the stent bill Ex.C2, dated 12.06.2019, the serial number of the stent is 9041741 and cost of the stent is Rs.23625/- and said amount has been charged by the OPs from the complainant. It is also evident from tax invoice Ex.C3, dated 12.06.2019, the serial number of the stent is the same and cost of the stent is Rs.12000/-. The abovesaid bills have been issued by the OPs hospital.

15.           During the course of arguments learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the cost mentioned in Ex.C3 is applicable only for Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojna  and the complainant does not fall under the said category and OPs have rightly charged the amount of Rs.23625/-. The onus to prove its version lies upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.

16.           Complainant served a legal notice Ex.C14 dated 10.12.2019 to the OPs and said notice duly replied by the OPs on 17.12.2019, but in the said reply it is no where mentioned that complainant does not fall under the category of Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojna and cost of the stent mentioned in Tax Invoice  Ex.C3 is not applicable in the case of the complainant.  These facts neither disclosed by the OPs, at the time of filing its written version nor at the time of leading the evidence. Furthermore, in the written version OPs have taken a plea that it was merely a clerical mistake in the bill. The box of the stent was carrying different MRP. During the course of arguments OPs have changed their stand just to escape their skin.

17.           It has been proved from the stent bill Ex.C2 the cost of the stent has been shown and OPS have charged the same as  Rs.23625/- but it is also proved from the Tax Invoice Ex.C3  the actual cost of the stent is Rs.12000/-. OPs have failed to explain as to why they have charged Rs.23625/- instead of Rs.12,000/-. Hence, act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practices.

18.           In the present complaint, complainant has sought following relief from the OPs:-

a) to pay the compensation of Rs.19 lacs alongwith the  interest @ 12% per annum from 12.06.2019 till its realization.

b) to pay the cost of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

The compensation sought by the complainant is very higher side, it would be justified, if the reasonable compensation to be awarded.

19.           In view of the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for Rs.11625/- (Rs.23625-Rs.12000) alongwith compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

20.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.11625/- (Rs.eleven thousand six hundred twenty five only) to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:31.08.2022.

                                                                       

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member