DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.331/2017  

QUORUM:

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency in service by not providing the original and authenticated CD/DVD of Angioplasty performed upon him along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.11,000/- with interest. 
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that the complainant is a Teacher in Delhi Government and is a beneficiary of Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme (DGEHS) and on 23.09.2015 he was suffering from indigestion, acidity and mild burning in the chest and therefore his son took him to the Deepak Memorial Hospital, Karkari Mor which is an empanelled hospital of DGEHS and the doctor on duty suggested that pain might be cardiological and accordingly the doctor on duty called the ambulance from nearby Metro Hospital which is also the empanelled hospital under DGEHS.  The complainant told the doctor that he is conscious and he can go on his motorcycle with his son but the doctor insisted to go to Metro Hospital in ambulance only and on reaching the Metro Hospital, Preet Vihar (OP) he was administered several tablets after which complainant became semi unconscious and when he regained consciousness he was told by his wife that he has undergone angioplasty and two stunts have been inserted into his arteries. He was discharged from the hospital on 24.09.2015 and a total bill of Rs.1,71,446/- was raised but OP hospital did not provide him CD/DVD of the angioplasty which they performed and when he enquired he was informed that the same is not provided to the patients/beneficiaries  of DGEHS.  On the request /persistence of the complainant, he was referred to accounts department where the officials told him to deposit Rs.1200/- as the cost of the CD/DVD which is not included in the bill and when the complainant asked about the bill/receipt, the account officer refused to give the receipt.  On much insistence the OP’s officials informed him that complainant should sent a request from the DDO of his office and accordingly his DDO Sh. Narender Singh wrote a letter to the OP Hospital but despite that no CD/DVD was provided.  The complainant thereafter wrote letter to the Director/CMO, and higher authorities and even to the Medical Council of India (MCI) but apart from the MCI no other office sent him reply but MCI wrote a letter to the OP with copy to him thereby directing the OP that a copy of CD/DVD be provided to the complainant but the same was not provided even thereafter and he wrote another letter to MCI on the same subject.  It is further submitted that after this letter, the representative of OP Hospital sent one envelope containing two CDs in the office of Deputy Director of Education, Zone –III, Rani Garden but when he opened the same these CDs were not playable in the Computer/CPU and those CDs as were provided by the Hospital are attached herein with the complaint.  When this matter was brought to the notice of OP, he was told that the complainant cannot open the CD and it is only a cardiologist who can open that CD and then the Complainant got the said official confronted with the copy of the CD as provided to his wife for her angiography in another hospital by stating that the said CD was playable on any CPU upon which the said official assured the complainant that they would provide another CD to the complainant and accordingly it is alleged that OP is guilty of unfair trade practice as well as adopting fraudulent practices of providing fake/unplayable CDs and it is stated that not providing the medical record, which is required to be provided within 72 hrs., to the patient amounts to criminal negligence and also deficiency of services and also against the professional etiquettes and ethics.  It is further submitted that OP also even charged excess payments fraudulently and they have charged Rs.15,209/- for coronary angiography and Rs.1,65,941/- for balloon coronary angioplasty which is a fraudulent act on the part of OPs as the angiography is done initially and if the angioplasty is required then automatically it becomes angioplasty  when the stunts are inserted, i.e. the angiography becomes angioplasty and no amount was required to be charged by the OP.  It is further submitted that from the conduct of OP, it appears that the angioplasty of the complainant has been done unnecessarily and it seems that there is a deliberate concealment of vital medical records i.e. CD/DVD and then deliberately not providing the same amounts to deficiency in service by the OP and accordingly it is prayed that OP be directed to provide playable/original and authenticated CD/DVD of angiography/angioplasty with compensation and litigation charges. 
3. The OP has filed its reply taking preliminary objection that present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on various grounds interalia stating that after the treatment the complainant was successfully discharged from the Hospital in stable condition and at the time of discharging the complainant he was handed over the CD from the Lab of the OP Hospital as a routine practice which were duly recorded in the Lab register having the acknowledgement of the patient/attendant therefore no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant.  The Compensation sought is stated to be highly exaggerated and even otherwise the Hospital has no objection to supply the said CD even at this stage and the complainant may be directed to receive the said CD at his own cost and complaint of the complainant be dismissed.  Complainant is not a consumer qua the OP and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant or against the OP, as on the basis of documents enclosed by the complainant CD/DVD were demanded/required by the Sarvodaya Bal Vidhyalaya, Rani Garden and accordingly the cause of action if any is in between the School and the OP Hospital and accordingly the complainant has no locus to file the present complaint case.  It is further submitted that the OP has provided the CD to the School on 11.05.2017 but School till date has not raised any objection that CD is not playable and even the complainant prior to the present complaint has failed to approach the hospital with the said objection.  It is further submitted that CD was submitted to the School and School has already reimbursed the cost of the treatment to the OP Hospital which shows that there was never any objection as are being raised by the complainant which are afterthought, manipulated and mis-conceived.  It is further submitted that if the CD was given to the School then how the said CD came to the complainant is a matter of concern and also prima-facie proves that the complainant has filed a manipulated story to extort money from the OP Hospital.  It is further submitted that complainant never paid any amount to the OP and as such he is not a consumer qua the Hospital.  Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of any cause of action.  It is further submitted that from the complaint as stated it is clear that complainant has no grievance w.r.t. the services provided by the Hospital therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed. 
4. On merit the facts w.r.t. the complainant visiting the hospital is not disputed, his initial visit to Deepak Memorial Hospital however is denied for want of knowledge as the treatment record of Deepak Memorial Hospital has not been filed on record which proves that complainant is trying to manipulate the facts. It is further submitted that after the arrival of the complainant to Hospital he was  immediately attended and required medical assistance was provided and later on angiography was performed by Dr. Manish Aggarwal and stunting was done by another Senior Doctor on the choice made by the complainant i.e. Dr. Ramesh Arora.  It is specifically denied that Hospital did not provide the CD/DVD of the angioplasty and it is further denied that declaration was made by the OP hospital that CD/DVD was not provided as alleged.  It is also denied that complainant was asked to pay Rs.1,200/- as the cost of CD/DVD and it is reiterated that at the time of discharge on 24.09.2015 the Complainant was provided the CD without any cost which fact the complainant has intentionally concealed.  It is also denied that OP Hospital received any letter from CMO or MCI dated 16.04.2016 and it is reiterated that CD has already been given to the Complainant.  It is further stated that OP was provided the said two CDs through the School subsequently however it is denied that CD was not provided to the Complainant or CD was provided after the alleged letter from MCI.  It is further submitted that the Complainant has not shown the said CD to the OP Hospital so as to verify as to whether the said CD was playable or not as alleged which itself shows the malafide on the part of Complainant.  It is also denied that OP is guilty of Unfair Trade Practice or has overcharged the bill or that has adopted fraudulent practices by providing fake CDs or that he has overcharged the Bill.  It is submitted that patient was admitted early morning and coronary angiography was done by Dr. Manish Aggarwal on 23.09.2015, the Complainant and his wife stopped taking consultancy of Dr. Manish Aggarwal and the wife of Complainant submitted a written request to the Hospital, and therefore subsequently angioplasty was done by Dr. Ramesh Arora and two senior most doctors of the OP hospital.  It is further submitted that angiography and angioplasty both are different as the angiography is the details of invasive procedure studying all the major arteries of the heart and finding out the target arteries of concern whereas the angioplasty approaches on the target artery of concern for stunting and management therefore the facts as mentioned by the Complainant that angiography and angioplasty is one and the same thing is nothing but absence of knowledge.  The Complainant infact had never raised any issue at the time of discharge and now at this stage such allegation are of no legal values.  The fact w.r.t. overcharging is denied and it is submitted that once the amount has been reimbursed by the competent authority, Complainant cannot allege any fact w.r.t. overcharging as the charges are paid by Delhi Government as per procedures after fulfilling all the formalities.  It is accordingly prayed that complaint of the Complainant be dismissed. 
5. Complainant has filed Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP and has reaffirmed and reiterated the contents of the complaint. 
6. Complainant has filed his own evidence and OP has filed the evidence of Dr. Puneet Gupta, Medical Superintendent of OP Hospital, Affidavit of Dr. Ramesh Arora the treating consultant and evidence of Path Lab Technician Sh. Brij Pal Singh. 
7. Complainant as well as OP both have filed their Written Arguments.    
8. The Commission has heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.   
9. In nutshell the Complainant has the grievance w.r.t. to two aspects firstly that he was not provided with the CD/DVD of the angiography/ angioplasty and secondly w.r.t. overcharging the bill for the treatment.  Although, there is complete paragraph written by the complainant in the complaint thereby explaining as to how angiography and angioplasty is one and the same thing and as to how the OP hospital has charged excessive amount of Rs.15.000/- approx. but while coming to the prayer clause he has not made any such prayer and therefore the Commission is not adverting to the allegation of overcharging by the OP from the employer of the Complainant.  However, as far as second part is concerned which has been much thrusted upon by the complainant and it is contended that that the OP has not provided him the CD/DVD of his angiography/ angioplasty, and not only this the same was provided only after the intervention of Indian Medical Council but even the said CD/DVD was not playable.  Record perused.    As per record OP has filed the document on Commission’s record pertaining to its Path lab which they call it ‘Path Lab Register’ and it is argued that the CD/DVD was provided by the OP Hospital against the signature of the complainant himself.  This fact was written by the OP in the Written Statement and in the Rejoinder the Complainant has again denied this fact that no CD was given.  Against such oral versions of the complainant, the OP has placed document on record bearing signature of the complainant on the path lab register.  The OP has further stated in the Written Statement that if the said CD/DVD was not playable then the complainant should have approached them and playable CD/DVD could also have been provided.  
10. After hearing the arguments of complainant as well as counsel for the OP this issue now can be divided into two parts. Firstly, whether the CD/DVD was provided and secondly, whether the CD/DVD was playable or not.  The version of the complainant is only oral whereas the version of the OP is based on the document that CD has been provided and there are signatures of the complainant on the Path lab Register, which are not disputed.  In view of provision of Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act, the written document would dominate over the oral submission, and therefore it stands proved that the copy of the CD/DVD was given to the complainant. Not only this, as per the admission of the complainant one CD has been given to him although it was not given initially therefore the fact that the complainant has been given the copy of CD/DVD of his angiography/ angioplasty stands proved. 
11. Second issue is as to the CD was playable or not.  To prove this fact the Complainant has to prove first as to how it was not playable, and which of the CD was not playable.  The Complainant submitted that he has placed on record two CDs to prove that these CDs were not playable.  Certain pre-requisites are required i.e. whether the CD placed on record is the same CD which he received from the OP or whether it was some different CD.  The Commission has opened the envelope and two CDs are taken out.  These CDs bears the name of the Hospital and also the sticker on it.  Therefore, it stands proved that the CD as placed on record by complainant, is the same CD which was given by OP to the complainant.  However, whether these CDs are those CDs, which were given to the complainant initially or these are the CDs which were provided to the complainant through its employer has not been proved.  The Complainant also has not been able to prove that the CD which was provided initially was not playable and no contention qua that CD has been raised or provided.  Further, although the complainant filed that CD in the Commission’s file, but never agitated to open the same at any point of time, so as to ascertain that if the CDs were not playable from the very beginning.  The Commission is of the opinion that the complainant should have taken steps at appropriate time i.e. at the earliest possible and also should have proved that the CD which was given to him earlier  also was not playable.  Therefore, there are certain loop holes w.r.t. proving that it was playable in the year 2017.  In absence of any opinion taken in the year 2017, this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove that the CDs/DVDs which were supplied either initially or subsequently were not playable at that relevant time as alleged.  Therefore, the complaint case is dismissed. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 05.06.2023.