Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/338/2023

SUBASH CHANDER MALIK SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR KUSUM MALIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA 1MG HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

ATUL GOYAL

27 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/338/2023
Date of Institution	:	20/07/2023
Date of Decision	:	27/08/2024

 

Subash Chander Malik (since deceased) through his LRs:-

(i) Kusum Malik W/o Late Sh.Subash Chander Malik resident of House No.235, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.

(ii) Puneet Malik S/o Late Sh.Subash Chander resident of House No.235, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.

Also at:-

House No.5639, The Orchid Crescent, DLF Phase-4, Gurgaon-122009.

(iii) Himani Madan W/o Arun Madan & D/o Late Sh.Subash Chander Malik resident of Flat No.1004, Sector 82, Seven Lamps, Kherki Daula, Obedience Tower, Gurgaon, Haryana-122004.

...Complainants

VERSUS

1. TATA 1MG Health care Solutions Private Limited (formerly known as 1mg Healthcare Solutions Private Limited and Delhi Mediart Private Limited) having Registered Address at Level 3, Vasant Square Mall, Pocket V, Sector B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

Also At:-

First Floor Block 3 Hafed Warehouse, New Anaj Mandi, Khandsa Road,Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

2. Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mohali, Near Civil Hospital, Phase-6, Mohali, Punjab-160055.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate proxy for Sh.Atul Goyal, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	None for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Ankush Aggarwal, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the Complainant (since deceased) is being represented through his legal heirs and used to purchase the medicines prescribed to him by OP No.2 from the OP No.1. The OP No.1 took the order on the Whatsapp and after receiving the order used to dispatch the same to the address of the Complainant. The certain medicines were prescribed by doctor of OP No.2 to the Complainant (since deceased) on various dates Annexure C- 1. The Complainant (since deceased) placed orders on the Whatsapp and the medicines were then dispatched to the Complainant. The copy of prescription was also shared on the Whatsapp with the OP No.1. It is pertinent to state here that at present there are no records available with the LRs of the Complainant pertaining to the placing of the order on Whatsapp Annexure C-2. The OP No.1 dispatched certain medicines on 17.12.2022 and copy of the same is attached as Annexure C-3. The perusal of the invoice clearly shows that the patient name and doctor name has been wrongly mentioned. However, the address & mobile no. is correct which happens to be the residential address of the son of the Complainant (since deceased). It is further alleged that the perusal of the Annexure C-1 shows that the OP No.2 has prescribed tab Folvite 5mg to the Complainant (since deceased) but the OP No.1 has supplied Folitrax-5 Tablet to the Complainant. The Complainant consumed Folitrax-5 Tablet Annexure C-4. It is further stated that Folvite tab is given for the deficiency of iron whereas Folitrax-5 is the treatment for cancer patient. The consumption of wrong medicine lead to the deterioration in the health of the Complainant (since deceased) and resultantly he visited to the OP No.2 on 16.01.2023, 30.01.2023 and 31.01.2023. The Complainant got admitted on 01.02.2023 and ultimately expired on 06.02.2023 Annexure C-5 and Annexure C-6. Death summary is attached as Annexure C-9 and the death certificate is attached as Annexure C-10. It was specifically recorded in the provisional summary that the patient was taking Methotrexate (5mg) instead of Folvite as prescribed and in the death summary, it has clearly come on record that the cause of death was Acute Coronary Event due to CKD on MHD and Methotrexate Toxicity. The son of the Complainant (since deceased) wrote an e-mail dated 09.02.2023 to the OP No.1 saying that the bill has been issued with the wrong patient name and wrong doctor name but the OP No.1 did not rectify the said laps Annexure C-11 & C-12. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that there is not a single averment to the effect that any order was placed by the complainants on the basis of the prescriptions placed on record alongwith the complaint. Therefore, the allegation that a wrong medicine was supplied by the answering respondent is neither made out from the pleadings nor from the documents annexed to the complaint. It is further stated that the complainants are not ‘Consumers’ under the CP Act, since the complainants admittedly have no proof of purchase of the product in question. Therefore, the complaint deserves dismissal, in limine. The complaint alleges that the order for the medicine i.e., Folvite 5mg which was allegedly prescribed by the doctor, was placed on Whatsapp, however, the complainant was supplied with Folitrax-5 tablets. The said allegation is false and baseless and hence the same is vehemently denied by the OP No.1. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the deceased had visited the hospital for OPD-Consultation on dated 12.09.2022, 14.11.2022, 16.01.2023, 31.01.2023 and 30.01.2023 for Dialysis and such other dates. However, after that deceased was admitted in hospital on dated 01.02.2023 with complaints of oral ulcers with difficulty in swallowing and painful skin ulcerations over groin. On history it was found out that pt was taking METHOTREXATE 5 MG OD instead of FOLVITE as prescribed. CBC, LFT was advised and reports showed pancytopenia with transaminitis. He was diagnosed with Methotrexate toxicity induced pancytopenia thrombocytopenia transaminitis. The deceased was started on the lines of methotrexate toxicity with best and proper treatment despite all supportive and therapeutic measures there was no improvement in pancytopenia. Significant improvement was seen in transaminitis. Oncology consult was taken and was advised to continue with same treatment, around 20.02 pm patient suddenly had bradycardia followed by cardiac arrest. CPR was done as per Acls Protocols. Despite all efforts patient could not be revived and was declared expired at 20:50pm on 6/2/23. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The main grievance of the LRs of the complainant (since deceased) is that OP No.1 has supplied wrong medicines to the complainant leading to his death after consumption of the same.
8.     On perusal of para 3 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the complainant placed orders on whatsapp and the medicines were dispatched to the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the LRs have no records with regard to placing of the order on whatsapp.
9.     The only document relied upon by the complainant is the invoice, where the name is mentioned as ‘Idris’. The said invoice is also not in the name of complainant.
10.     The complainant has stated that Gurgaon address is his residence is based on Annexure C-14, which is a lease deed (annexed with rejoinder). We have perused the said lease deed. The stamp paper is dated 5.2.2022, where in the Notorisation of the agreement is attested one day prior i.e., on 4.2.2022. Hence, we are of the view that the lease deed is a forged and fabricated document and cannot be relied. In view of above, the allegation that wrong medicine was supplied by the OP No.1 to the complainant has not been substantiated either from the pleadings or from the documents.
11.     In view of the above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
27/08/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member