Haryana

Ambala

CC/193/2014

HARMOHINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROTARY CLUB - Opp.Party(s)

PUNEET SIRPAUL

16 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

           Complaint Case No.      : 193 of 2014.

Date of Institution         : 31.07.2014.

             Date of Decision            : 16.08.2017

 

Harmohinder Singh Gujral son of Nirmal Singh Gujral # 93, Gandhi Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Rotary Club, Cancer and General Hospital through its President Ram Bagh Road, Ambala Cantt.
2. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Limited Office at #  Muktanand Marg,Chala Vapi-396101, Gujrat

                                                                   ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh. Puneet Sirpaul, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Parvesh Goel, counsel for OPs.  

 

ORDER

 

                   The facts of the present complaint are that due to heart problem, the complainant had purchased a STENT from OP No.2 through OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.65,000/- with assurance given by OP No.2 that the same would work properly for many years. OP No.1 implanted the STENT in a right manner on 23.06.2013 but within one year it started giving problem therefore, life of the complainant become hell and went into danger. He approached Op No.2 and lodged his complaint but to no avail, therefore, the complainant again got implanted a STENT from ALCHEMIST on 16.04.2014 by spending a sum of Rs.1,35,800/- and also remained admitted in hospital from 16.04.2014 to 19.04.2014. Hence this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C9.  

2.                          Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the motive of the complainant is to take undue advantage of the Act as the present disputes involving complex and complicated issues and it requires expert evidence and the present complaint cannot be decided in summary manner. The Op No. 1 is a non-profitable charitable hospital for treatment and medical aid to the general public. The complainant had visited the OP No.1 with known case of hypertension and diabetic mellitus from Coronary Artery Disease. After obtaining consent from the complainant, STENT was successfully implanted on 23.06.2013 and complainant was discharged on 25.06.2013 with post operative medication advice and the implanted STENT was one of the best approved and used by medical fraternity. If the patient do not follow the medial advice then in such cases stenosis of artery can re-occur and it cannot be attributed to the quality of STENT. The risk is restenosis is also associated with many other diseases such as Diabetics, Hypertension, body metabolism self-negligent in follow-up, old etc etc. and not at all with STENT as no device can be complete free of risk of re-blocking and restenosis is well known and is treated with re-vascularisation i.e. either re-stanting or by-passing. The OP No.1 had charged Rs.1,00,000/- in two installments whereas for the same problem he had spent Rs.1,35,000/-. There is no negligence on the part of hospital or its doctor in rendering professional medical service. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as the Op No.1 is user of the implants being manufactured and supplied by OP No.2 and it is not its agent/representatives.  The Op No.2 has not sold the STENT to the complainant and the pleading of the complaint also does not speak about any role of Op No.2 in the same. The complainant had paid the price of the STENT to the OP No.1 which was one of the best STENT   for the treatment of Coronary Artery Disease in India. OP No.2 has further taken more or less the same grounds as taken by OP No.1. Other allegations have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RX and Annexure RY besides documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R10.

4.                          After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it is not disputed that complainant had visited the hospital of OP No.1 on 23.06.2013 with acute chest pain and on examination he was found suffering with hypertension and diabetes. Clinically the patient was diagnosed as case of Acute Coronary Arteries disease which was confirmed with ECG & Angiography which reveals blockage of  L.A.D (left anterior descending artery) and to save the life non invasive surgical procedure i.e. PTCA (Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) was done by the treating doctor. The patient was discharged on 25.06.2013 as per discharge card in a stable condition with the advice to continue medicines as prescribed in discharge card (Annexure C8). After that patient remained asymptomatic for about 10 months as per the version of the complainant. It is only after that patient complains of recurrence of chest pain. For such he got him examined at Alchemist Hospital, Panchkula and remained admitted there w.e.f. 16.04.2014 to 19.04.2014 and during his stay in the hospital patient was finally diagnosed as PTCA Instent Re-stenosis CAG-Single Vessel Disease PTCA/STENT to LAD done Hypertension Diabetes Mellitus-II as mentioned in Annexure C1 and the procedure done CAG-Single Vessel Disease (16.04.2014) PTCA/STENT to LAD (17.04.2014).  The patient was suffering with hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus and in such cases the Re-stenosism of STENT is much more as compare to non-diabetic. As per literature re-stenosis means that a section of blocked artery that was opened with angioplasty or a stent has become narrowed again. Restenosis is the recurrence of stenosis, a narrowing of a blood vessel, leading to restricted blood flow. Restenosis usually pertains to an artery or other large blood vessel that has become narrowed, received treatment to clear the blockage and subsequently become renarrowed. It refers to a gradual re-narrowing of a coronary artery after a blockage has been treated with angioplasty and stenting. If restenosis occurs, it  usually happens within 3-12 months of the procedure. Because restenosis causes the artery to become narrow again, symptoms of angina commonly return. Restenosis was recognized as a problem in the very earliest day of angioplasty occurring in as many as 40 – 50 % of people who were treated with angioplasty. The reason stents were developed in the first place was to reduce the incidence of restenosis. As per the advanced technology and quality of STENT and perfections of new technology the risk thereof has come down upto 15 %. Now question arises why does in-stent restenosis happen.  As per literature, when the stent is placed in blood vessel, new tissue grows inside the stent, covering the struts of the stent. Initially, this new tissue consists of healthy cells from the lining of the arterial wall (endothelium). Later, scar tissue may form underneath the new healthy lining. In-stent restenosis is typically seen after 12 months have passed unevenfully. As per literature the treatment for restenosis is that While the use of DES has greatly reduced the incidence of stent restenosis, if has not eliminated the problem. If restenosis occurs and is producing symptoms of angina, treatment usually involves a repeat procedure- typically, insertion of a second stent in the same location. Coronary artery bypass surgery is another option for people with stent restenosis, especially if the restenosis recurs after a second stent.  In the present case the complainant has claimed that due to non-working of stent properly problems again developed in his body, therefore, the treatment for restenosis was again got done from Alchemist Hospital and he had spent Rs.1,35,800/- on the said treatment but after going through the evidence as well as literature we are of the confirmed view that patient was neither wrongly diagnosed nor wrongly treated. It is a case of Re-stenosis which is not of complication of such procedure in very first year of treatment. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Chief Medical Officer and another Vs. Ramesh Chand Sharma  2014 (25) RCR (Civil) 897 (NC). Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint. There is no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:      16.08.2017                          (D.N. ARORA)

                            PRESIDENT       

         

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                      MEMBER

 

 

            (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                      MEMBER