Delhi

North

RBT/CC/134/2022

LT. COL PARAMJIT SINGH, RETD - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE CARDIAC AMBULANCE - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2023

ORDER

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

RBT/CC No/134/2022

[DCDRC-V CC No.131/2018]

In the matter of

Lt. Col.Paramjit Singh,Retd.

BW5C, Shalimar Bagh

Delhi                                                                                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

Proprietor

The Cardiac Ambulance 

2647/194, Onkar Nagar-A

Tri Nagar, Delhi                                                                                                                          …Opposite Party-1

 

Chairman

Sir Ganga Ram Hospital

Rajendar Nagar, New Delhi                                                                                                       …Opposite Party-2

                                                      

ORDER
02/09/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, where the matter was transferred from DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission. 

1. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that, on 03/11/2017 around 10.00 p.m. the complainant, Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh, Retd. booked an Air ambulance to air lift critically injured Sh.Harsimran Singh (patient), nephew of the complainant from Jabalpur to Delhi urgently. 
2. It has been stated by the complainant that he was assured that the air ambulance will reach by 9.30 am on 04/11/2017, therefore, Sh.Harsimran Singh was discharged by Jabalpur Hospital in the morning.  The complainant has alleged that one namely, Dr.Amit Jindal kept on misinforming about the flight and ultimately the air ambulance landed at 6.00 pm on 04/11/2017, putting the life of the patient at risk.   
3. It has been further alleged by the complainant that he had paid for air ambulance from Delhi to Jabalpur and back to Delhi but Dr. Amit Jindal had planned it from Delhi to Thiruvanthapuram, Thiruvanthapuram to Chennai, Chennai to some other place and back to Chennai, Chennai to Jabalpur and Jabalpur to Delhi thereby, causing inordinate delay. Due to this delay, the patient reached at around 11.00 p.m on 04/11/2017 at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi.
4. The complainant has also stated that the Cardiac Ambulance not only overcharged but also had put the life of the patient at risk.  A letter was written to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as the service was outsourced by them but there was no response.  The wilful delay in evacuating the patient to Delhi not only caused distress, but also mental agony and harassment.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of OP-1, the complainant has prayed for the direction to refund Rs.3,50,000/- as the air ambulance did not come from Delhi as contracted and Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and mental agony. 
6. The invoice issued by the Cardiac Ambulance dated 04/11/2017 as Annexure A, discharge ticket dated 31/10/2017 of District Hospital Chhatarpur (M.P) asAnnexure B, Discharge Summary dated 04/11/2017 of Jabalpur Hospital and Research Centre are Annexure C to Annexure D, a letter to The Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital dated 26/12/2017 as Annexure E and a letter dated 13/11/2017 issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as Annexure F have been annexed with the complaint.
7. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP-1 and OP-2.  Thereafter, Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-1 , where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as : complainant was neither the consumer nor authorised to file the present complaint ; there was no cause of action  in the favour of the complainant as there was no deficiency in the part of Dr.Amit Jindal(OP-1); the Commission had no territorial jurisdiction; the matter involved multiple question of facts and law which required elaborate, oral as well documentary evidence from both sides and further examination and cross examination which could not be decided in summary proceedings.
8. It has been submitted that  a letter  dated 26/12/2017 written by the complainant was duly replied vide a reply dated 08/01/2018, posted on 29/01/2018, through registered letter by OP-1 and OP-2 explaining in detail the situation in hand.  It has been stated that the reply dated 08/01/2018 may be read as part and parcel of the written statement.
9. It has been admitted that, on 03/11/2017, the complainant contacted the OP-1 on phone for air ambulance to shift Sh. Harsimran Singh (Patient) from Jabalpur to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.
10. The complainant was informed that it would be tentatively possible around 11.00 a.m to 12.00 noon on 04/11/2017, subject to other normal condition which included weather condition, non cancellation of any flight/air ambulance due to any other reason by Airport authority or by someone else, as OP-1 had to arrange the air ambulance from other source.  It was further made clear to the complainant that OP-1 did not have air ambulance of his own and neither Sir Ganga Ram Hospital so, the air ambulance could not be made available for 04/11/2017 by 12.00 noon due to random cancellation without prior intimation to OP-1 or anyone else. OP-1 constantly remained in touch with the air ambulance provider and kept on informing each and every development, possibility and availability of air ambulance to the complainant.   As the complainant did not raise any objection at that time thus, he was estopped by his own act and conduct. 
11. It has been further submitted that OP-1 being sincere, bonafide and engaged in noble medical profession sent his ambulance bus fully equipped with all equipment, staff, Doctors, technicians etc. and made it available at the airport gate at around 7.30 a.m. on 04/11/2017.  The medical staff with doctor kept on waiting up to 11.00 a.m to 11.30 am on 04/11/2017, where they were informed that the scheduled air ambulance had been cancelled by the airport authority without specifying any written reasons thereof.
12. OP-1 with great efforts was able to arrange an air ambulance, which was scheduled up to Chennai and was successful in lifting the patient around 6.00 p.m. on 04/11/2017.  It has also been stated that OP-1 was constantly keeping a watch over the health condition of the patient and was informed by the doctor/hospital staff at Jabalpur Hospital that there was no emergency or deterioration of the health of the patient.  Therefore, there was no loss of any kind caused to the complainant/patient thus, there was no deficiency in services. It has been denied that the complainant was overcharged.  It has also been denied that there was assurance that the air ambulance will go from Delhi to Jabalpur.  It has been stated that initially, the air ambulance was agreed to have the journey from Delhi to Jabalpur and Jabalpur to Delhi and as the said route was going to be difficult due to non availability of the ambulance, therefore, an alternative arrangement for boarding the patient from Jabalpur to Delhi was made by requesting the air ambulance stationed at Chennai to take a flight from Chennai to Jabalpur.  It has been admitted that Rs.3,50,000/- had been charged in lump sum i.e. a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- was paid to the air ambulance air craft provider and Rs.40,000/- were charged for advanced cardiac life support air ambulance, medical team charges and other facilities provided to the patient.  Rest of the contents have been denied with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint.
13. The OP-1 has annexed the discharge summary of Jabalpur Hospital Research and Centre dated 04/11/2017 and Discharge summary dated 13/11/2017 of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as  Annexure A (Colly),  invoice dated 04/11/2017 and tax invoice issued by VSR as Annexure B (Colly), affidavit of Mr. Rahul Baghel, Technician, Mr.Sanjiv Kumar, driver as Annexure C(Colly), letter dated 26/12/2017 written by the complainant to the Chairman, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital  and reply thereof which is dated 08/01/2018 as Annexure D (Colly).
14. OP-2 filed their written statement, where they have taken the preliminary objection such as the complaint was devoid of cause of action as the complainant neither suffered any loss nor had been able to point out any deficiency in services.  The complaint was wrong, frivolous and baseless; the complaint was not maintainable qua OP-2, as the dispute was between the complainant and OP-1.  It has been submitted that OP-1 and OP-2 are independent entity and OP-2 is not responsible for act/omission on the part of OP-1 and its employees. 
15. It has been further submitted that there was no relationship between OP-1 and OP-2 except in providing basic and advanced life support ambulance and Hearse Van services at OP-2 for dropping patient after discharge and bringing patient to OP-2 as per the agreement executed between OP-1 and OP-2. 
16. OP-1 is solely responsible for dealing with the patient and their attendant for providing the above-mentioned services and the arrangement of the air ambulance was a direct dealing between the complainant and OP-1. OP-2 had nothing to do with the internal affairs of OP-1.  It has been admitted that the discharge summary dated 13/11/2017, was issued by them.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied as wrong and for want of knowledge.
17. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1 was filed by the complainant, wherein it has been submitted that the nephew of the complainant
    Sh.Navneet Singh had delivered Rs.3,50,000/- in cash to Dr. Amit Jindal (OP-1) in his office at 5^th floor and no receipt had been issued till date.  The complainant has alleged that there was not only delay in airlifting the patient from Jabalpur to Delhi but, there was also a delay in taking the patient from Palam Airport to Hospital (OP-2) due to the act of the accompanying doctor.  As OP-2 did not respond, a complaint was also registered with Indian Medical Association, wherein OP-1 had responded to the letter which was not even addressed to him.  Thus, it confirmed the relation between OP-1 and OP-2.   It has been denied that the ambulance flight was cancelled by airport authority and further submitted that company of OP-1 was not even registered with Director General, Civil Aviation, which came to the knowledge of the complainant in response to the grievance MOCAV/E/2018/00762, DGCA wherein responded, that it has been investigated that no such company is registered with DGCA and the applicant may approach to appropriate authority to file a FIR with police, for refund. 
18. The complainant has stated that the patient was in Intensive Care Unit of Jabalpur hospital and had been discharged against medical advice and has denied that there was no emergency or risk of life to the patient.  The complainant has annexed the copy of the grievance stated as Annexure P.
19.  The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-2, wherein, it has been denied that there was no relation between OP-1 and OP-2.  It has been stated that the telephone number of OP-1 was listed under Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Air Ambulance Service.  The complainant has further alleged that Dr. Amit Jindal, has/had an office on the 5^th floor of OP-2 and sum of Rs.3,50,000/- had been handed over to Dr. Amit Jindal in his office. The complainant has also stated that it has been admitted by OP-2 that the services had been outsourced by them to OP-1, a company which is not registered with DGCA.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been reaffirmed. Copy of the Centralised Public Grievance Redress And Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) has been annexed as Annexure- P
20. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant, where he has reiterated the contents of the complaint.  The complainant has relied on the documents annexed with the complaint and rejoinder ,which are Invoice as Annexure-1, Letter outsourcing as Annexure-2, Discharge summary Jabalpur Hospital as Annexure-3, copy of  Grievance to CPGRAMS and reply as Annexure -4, Discharge summary of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as Annexure-5 and letter to OP-2 as Annexure-6. It has been submitted that at Delhi Airport the patient was shifted in Air ambulance at 8.15 p.m and the doctor, who had accompanied with the patient in the air ambulance did not board the ambulance stating that he was not required and the technician would manage. 
21. It has been further deposed by the complainant that, he was following the ambulance with the car and informed Dr. Amit Jindal that the patient was on the way to the hospital and that no doctor was accompanying the patient in the ambulance.
22. Thereafter, at Dhaula Kuan the ambulance took a U turn and headed back towards the airport to pick up the doctor from Mehram Nagar, this resulted in a further delay of about one hour. 
23. OP-1 has got examined Dr.Amit Jindal, proprietor of OP-1 and has reiterated the contents of their written statement.  He has reiterated that the scheduled air ambulance meant and kept for shifting of the patient from Jabalpur to Delhi was cancelled by Air Authority(ies) without specifying any written reason thereof.  He has also got examined the technician and driver and have got their affidavit exhibited as             Ex-OPW-1/1 (Colly). The copy of the necessary medical records showing the good health without any deterioration of the medical condition of the patient is exhibited as Ex.OPW-1/2. 
24. OP-1 has further deposed that, he had paid a substantial amount to the air ambulance provider and other medical staff who had accompanied from Jabalpur to Delhi with all medical facility and OP-2 only got a meagre and nominal amount out of the total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- paid by the complainant.  He has submitted that a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- was paid to the air ambulance craft provider and Rs.40,000/- were charged for advanced cardiac life support air ambulance, medical team charges and other facilities and has got the details of the said amount as Ex.OPW-1/3 (colly)
25. OP-1 has also relied on letter dated 26/12/2017, containing the allegations which was sent by the complainant to the Chairman of OP-2, which was replied vide reply dated 08/01/2018 by OP-1 for his behalf as well as on behalf of OP-2  and has got them exhibited as Ex.OPW-1/4 and Ex.OPW-1/5 respectively.  It has been further submitted that the registration with DGCA is not required as OP-1 has no aircraft of its own and sought the arrangements from outside agency. 
26. Dr. (Brig.) Satendra Katoch, Additional Director Medical, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajendra Nagar has been examined on behalf of OP-2.  The contents of the written statement filed on behalf of the OP-2 have been reaffirmed. He has got exhibited the copy of the agreement executed between OP-1 and OP-2 for providing basic, advanced life support ambulance and Hearse Van services as Ex.RW-2/A.
27. We have heard the arguments on behalf of all the parties. The complainant has alleged that there was delay in airlifting of the patient for whom the services provided by    OP-1 were availed.  The payment of Rs.3,50,000/- is an admitted fact and availing of services is also not in dispute.
28. The complainant is aggrieved by the delay in air lifting of the patient, who was critically injured and admitted in ICU, Jabalpur Hospital & Research centre.
29. Admittedly, as borne out of the documents filed by the parties and the evidence adduced, the complainant had availed the services of OP-1 for airlifting his critically injured nephew, Sh. Harsimran Singh.  The first and foremost objection taken by   OP-1 is that the complainant is neither a consumer nor authorised to file the present complaint.  If we look at para 2 under the head ‘Reply as a whole/concluded Reply’ of the written statement of OP-1, it is stated that on 03/11/2017, when the complainant contacted OP-1 on phone for air ambulance to shift patient Sh.Harsimran Singh from Jabalpur to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajendra Nagar, Delhi-110060.  It has not been denied that the amount was paid by the complainant.  Thus, the patient was the beneficiary of such services and the consideration was paid by the complainant. Hence, the complainant is competent to file the present complaint.
30. OP-1, in its defence has stated that the air ambulance was cancelled by Airport Authority without any intimation, is not supported by any document, hence, it cannot be considered.
31. To understand the gravity of the situation, we need to look at the discharge summary of the Jabalpur Hospital & Research Centre dated 04/11/2017 and Sir Ganga Ram Hospital dated 13/11/2017{Annexure A (Colly)}.  Mr. Harsimran Singh, the patient was admitted in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at the Jabalpur Hospital & Research Centre on 01/11/2017 and again as mentioned in clinical summary of Discharge summary issued by OP-2 bears “The patient was admitted in SGRH ICU with the abovementioned history.......”, thus, it clearly indicates that the patient was critical, for which he was admitted to ICU.
32. It is important to note that the complainant got Mr.Harsimran Singh, the patient discharged only on the assurance and as committed by OP-1, that the patient shall be airlifted around 11.00 a.m.  As, OP-1 is engaged in providing services ,which are very crucial/critical in nature and the ‘Time’ is an essence in delivery of these services, which are of nature, where each and every minutes is crucial. The act/omission on part of OP-1 could have proved to be fatal for the person/beneficiary availing them.  As in the present case, there is a considerable delay on the part of OP-1, which cannot be ignored.  Apart from that, the entire payment of Rs.3,50,000/- was taken  by OP-1 in advance, in that case  the complainant had no other option except to wait.
33. It has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh”, CA No.7173 of 2002 decided on 17/03/2004, that the word 'compensation' is again of very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Commission has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the Commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation. The provision in our opinion enables a consumer to claim and empowers the Commission to redress any injustice done to him. Any other construction would defeat the very purpose of the Act. The Commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.
34. The complainant and his family was already facing the challenging circumstances, it was the time when the sole focus of complainant and his family should have been on well being of their patient but due to the instances of mis-communication and         mis-information by OP-1, they encountered distress and confusion.  The kind of services which are expected to be provided by OP-1 in the given critical situation should have been beyond any fault, imperfection or shortcoming, which is not so in the present case. Hence, we hold that OP-1 was deficient in rendering services.
35.  No liability can be fastened against OP-2, as the services were provided by OP-1 and complainant has not alleged any deficiency in medical treatment of the patient.
36. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we direct OP-1 to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation on account of deficiency in services, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant and his family. The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, in case of non-compliance, the above awarded compensation shall carry interest @7% p.a. from the date of order till realisation.

          Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta) Member

 

                            

 

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

President