Haryana

StateCommission

A/1508/2017

PARAS HOSPITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RISHI KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

HARSH AGGARWAL

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.1508 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution: 06.12.2017

                                                          Date of final hearing: 21.02.2023

Date of pronouncement: 17.03.2023

 

Paras Hospital, C-1, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Sector-43, Gurgaon, through its authorized signatory through Kapil Chaudhary.

 

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Rishi Kumar Jain S/o ChanderBhan, R/o H.No.146 A, Aadarsh Nagar, Gurgaon.

…..Contesting Respondent

2. Dr.Sanjeev Chaudhary, MBBS, MD (Medicine), DNV, Cardiology Consultant, Paras Hospital, Phase-1, Sushant Lok, Sector-43, Gurgaon.
3. Dr.M.K.Singh, Consultant (Internal Medicines), Paras Hospital, Phase-1, Sushant Lok, Sector-43,Gurgaon.
4. St.Jude Medical, Cardiac Rhythm, Management Division Ltd, Registered office 1-11-250A, Mata Rani Sensation Building Lane, Opposite Syndicate Bank, Begumpet, Hyderabad (A.P.).
5. M/s United India Insurance Company Divisional Office, 344/2, Church Road, Bhogal, New Delhi-011 through its Divisional Manager.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.M.K.Sood, Advocate alongwith Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Rishi Kumar Jain, respondent No.1 in person alongwithMr.Aseem Gupta, Advocate alongwith Mr. Nikhil  Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 already ex parte.

                   Mr. Abhishek Bansal proxy counsel for Mr.Anirudh Kush, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                   Mr. Rakshak Gupta proxy counsel for Mr.Akshat Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

                   Mr. B.R.Madan proxy counsel for Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for respondent No.5.

 

First Appeal No.51 of 2018

Date of institution:15.01.2018

Date of final Hearing: 21.02.2023

Date of pronouncement: 17.03.2023

 

Rishi Kumar Jain S/o ChanderBhan, Aged 73 years R/o H.No.146 A/1, Adarsh Nagar, Gurgaon-122001.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Paras Hospital, C-1, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Sector-43, Gurgaon in Haryana through its Director and authorized signatory.

 

2. Dr.Sanjeev Chaudhary, MBBS, MD (Medicine), DNV, Cardiology Consultant, Paras Hospital, C-1, Sushant Lok,Phase 1, Sector-43, Gurgaon.
3. Dr.M.K.Singh, Consultant Internal Medicines, Paras Hospitals, C-1,  Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Sector-43,Gurgaon.
4. St.Jude Medical, Cardiac Rhythm, Management Division Ltd, Registered office 1-11-250A, Mata Rani Sensation Building Lane, Opposite Syndicate Bank, Begumpet, Hyderabad (A.P.).
5. M/s United India Insurance Company Divisional Office, 344/2, Church Road, Bhogal, New Delhi-011 through its Divisional Manager.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Rishi Kumar Jain, respondent No.1 in person alongwithMr.Aseem Gupta, Advocate alongwith Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. M.K.Sood, Advocate alongwith Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, Advocate for therespondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 already ex parte.

                   Mr. Abhishek Bansal proxy counsel for Mr.Anirudh Kush, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                   Mr. Rakshak Gupta proxy counsel for Mr.Akshat Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

                   Mr. B.R.Madan proxy counsel for Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for respondent No.5.

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing No.1508 of 2017 and F.A. No.51 of 2018 will be disposed of as both of these appeals have been preferred against the order dated 24.10.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short ‘District Commission), whereby complaint was partly allowed.

2.      Delay of 40days  in filing the appeal  bearing No.51 of 2018 is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that  on 04.03.2013, the wife of the complainant was admitted in Paras Hospital due to chest congestion, severe breathing cough, lot of uneasiness and swelling in both legs. She was admitted under the supervision of OP No.2 who diagnosed her to be suffering from acute LV failure, dilated cardiomyopathy, non critical coronary artery disease LV dysfunction, EF 20% and hypothyroidism and LRTI.  On 08.03.2013, the treating doctor of OP No.1 discharged the patient  despite the fact that she was having severe infection in her body with high TLC counts  which persisted till her death on 25.03.2013. InfactOP No.2 discharged the patient with incomplete treatment. Instead of providing her required medical care Ops advised her to go for pacemaker device.  However after discharge, the patient lost the sensation of urine. On 11.03.2013, the patient was re-admitted in the hospital.  MRI test was conducted, however this investigative procedure could not be completed as the patient was weak. The patient suffered cardiac arrest but somehow her breath was revived and was shifted to CCU and was put on ventilator and oxygen support and thereafter she survived but was having severe infection and her right lung got badly affected.  On the advise of OP No.2, the consent was given to implant bi-ventricular pacemaker, but the said pacemaker was not shown to the complainant.  On 13.03.2013 CRT-D was implanted on the patient despite the fact that body of patient was not in acceptable condition due to infection and pacemaker was installed by OP No.2 with an ulterior motive. The patient was transferred to OP No.3 for care. The complainant requested the OP No.2 to transfer the patient to some other hospital, but, to no avail. There was absolutely no need of the  pacemaker and there was no improvement in the functioning of heart of the patient. Infact, condition of the patient further deteriorated due to  implantation of pacemaker.  On 25.03.2013 Madhur Jain (deceased) wife of complainant died away and pacemaker was removed from her body and handed over to him after sterilization but bill of the device was not given. The doctors were talking for implantation of CRT-D but it was ICD and the function  of both the device were different and device was infected and there was no improvement in functioning of the heart after the implantation of the said device.  The device was re-used, expired, infected and was totally ineffective. The cause of death of his wife was due to sheer negligence on the parts of the treating doctors and on account of  installation of ineffective pacemaker.  A sum of Rs.35500/- has wrongly been charged on account of doctor fee alongwith price of pacemaker to the tune of Rs.7,32,697.88 and installation charges of Rs.54,350/- by the OPs.

4.      OPs filed separate reply.  OP No.1 alleged that  the complainant has been compensated by the insurance company.  It was further alleged that best treatment was given to the patient  and all the allegations  leveled against the treating doctors were false and frivolous.  The patient was also transferred to another doctor for her care. Thus there being  no negligence on the part of OP No.1.

5.      OP No.2 in its reply alleged that  patient Madhur Jain was suffering from severe left ventricular dysfunction and she had the history of repeated hospitalization for congestive heart failure and pedal edema and she was given decongestive therapy with dobutamine infusion and intravenous diuretics, due to which she improved with decongestion and was advised cardiac resynchronization therapy with combo (CRT-D) pacemaker implantation.  The angiography was done on 04.03.2013 and the decision was taken to implant CRT-D after due consultation and complainant was explained about the line of treatment.   Before implantation of combo device the patient was investigated thoroughly and neurology opinion was also taken, who advised MRI of spine. However the patient was still awaiting MRI she suffered arrhythmia and cardiac arrest on 12.03.2013 due to irregular heart beat. The implantation of device the patient was extubated and was shifted to ICU. The patient  was referred to Dr. M.K.Singh due to her chest problem.  On 22.03.2013, the condition of the patient was stable. The device was purchased by the hospital and OP No.2 and 3 did their best as per standard medical norms, but, the patient was declared dead on 25.03.2013. The treating doctors were professionally skilled persons. Thus there being no negligence in service on the part of answering opposite party.

6.      OP No.3 in its reply submitted that no medical test was conducted on the dead body of the patient. The patient was transferred to him on 18.03.2013 for further investigation and care. After going through the test reports and presence of pleural fluid on USG chest and CECT chest, showing fibrocavitory lesions and multiple lymph nodes- the possibility of tuberculosis was considered and ATT was started with consultation of pulmonologist and ICU team broad spectrum antibiotics were continued medical manager of CHF and other supportive care in consultation with OP No.2. During the treatment, the TLC remained persistently high and condition of patient started deteriorating and antifungal medicine were also given and bone marrow was conducted to ascertain the haematological disorder but both were negative. All the tests were conducted as per the requirement. Thus there was no negligence on the part of the answering OP.

7.      OP NO.4 also filed separate reply. It was submitted that there was no liability of OP NO.4 about the use of device implanted by the concerned doctors/hospital.  The implantation of the device in the patient would depend upon the condition of patient. The device was sold before the expiry date.The device CRT-d was implanted on 13.03.2013 and the expiry date was 30.04.2013. Thus there was no negligence on the part of answering OP.

8.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Gurgaonhas partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 24.10.2017, which is as under:-

“Therefore, we are inclined  to hold that on account of providing of infective device by OP No.1 the deficiency can be said to have been taken place on the part of OP NO.1 as OP No.1 has supplied the said device to OP No.2 for implantation. Therefore, we direct the OP No.1 to refund the  cost of CRT-D machine alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of  complaint till its realization  and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.”

9.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant as well as O.P No. 1have preferred these appeals.

10.    Arguments heard. File perused.

11.    It is not disputed that the wife of the complainant was admitted in the hospital of opposite party No.1 and various tests were conducted.  It is also not disputed that she was a case of severe systolic left ventricular dysfunction with mitral regurgitation of moderate severity. It is also not disputed that she had a history of repeated hospitalization for congestive heart failure and pedal edema.  It is also not disputed that she was admitted for cardiac resynchronization therapy. It is also not disputed that during tests, she suffered sudden cardiac arrest.  The plea of the complainant was that the treating doctors/hospital has not followed proper care or to implant pacemakerdevice according to the procedure laid down by the medical norms.  They implanted the device on the patient ignoring her weak health and due to her weakness, they shifted the patient to another doctor.   It is not disputed that as per Ex.C-15 dated 11.03.2013, the patient was admitted for combo device implantation. The learned District Commission has referred the matter to the Medical Board but in absence of some documents vide report dated 17.06.2014 , the special medical board was unable to give any opinion in this case.   The another plea of the complainant was that ICD infection  was suspected after the installation of device.  It was the possibility that as per the medical norms inflammatory reaction due to other cardiac and vascular devices, implants and grafts, initial encounter.Since  the treating doctor suspected that the infection of ICD, which was implanted in the patient might be the cause of infection. The possibility of infection cannot be denied. The parties have not placed on record any documentary evidence, which shows when the device was shown to the complainant and when the device was purchased and where was receipt of the device. In the absence of any material document on record, the learned District Commission has observed that  OP No.1 has supplied the device to OP No.2 for implantation. There was no negligence on the part of OP Nos.2 to 5. The learned District commission has righty allowed the complaint of the complainant against OP No.1.

12.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellants stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeals bearing No.51 of 2018 andF.A. No.1508 of 2017stands dismissed on merits.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited at the time of filing the appeal bearing No.1508 of 2017be refunded to the complainant-Rishi Kumar Jain against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

14.              Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

16.              File be consigned to record room.

17.              The original judgement be attached with appeal No.1508 of 2017 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.51 of 2018.

 

17^thMarch, 2023       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)