VEENA MISRA,MEMBER - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 4.3.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum' for short) in Complaint Case No. 109/04 whereby the District Forum had dismissed the complaint.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are as under: (a) That the complainant is the wife of the deceased Narayan Prasad Dubey. The said Shri Dubey suffered chest pain and was admitted to Medical College Hospital on 11.5.2003 where he was examined by Dr. Shashank Gupta who found that the patient had heart attack and advised him to approach Escorts Hospital for treatment. (b) Thereafter, the patient was taken to Escorts Hospital on 28.5.2003 and the doctors advised angiography. After angiography it was found that one artery had 100% and another artery had 60% to 70% blockage and the doctors had advised for angioplasty and kept the patient under observation. (c) That OPs had told that expenditure for angioplasty would come to Rs. 1,60,000. As the patient belonged to a poor family he had applied to the State Govt. for aid for medical treatment and the Govt. had sanctioned Rs. 1,50,000 to Narayan Prasad Dubey under Rajeev Jeevan Rekha Yojna and a cheque dated 15.7.2003 in favour of the OP was received and was deposited with the OP on 18.7.2003. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was also deposited in addition to the aforesaid cheque. (d) That the patient was again admitted to the OP's hospital on 21.7.2003 as his problems had increased. He was administered medicines and it was told that angioplasty will be done after three days. However, even after the aforesaid period angioplasty was not done hence on inquiry by the relatives it was told that the relevant staff for angioplasty comes from Delhi and as the said staff has not come, angioplasty could not be performed. Thereupon the relatives of the patient showed their willingness to take the patient to Delhi. (e) On 6.8.2003 again the patient was taken to the OP's hospital and the OPs advised him to stop Ecosprin and advised to come again after 6 -7 days. Relatives of the patient again told them that they are prepared to take the patient to Delhi but the OPs said that the patient is under their observation and asked them to wait till 15.8.2003. (f) As the patient had deposited entire amount with the OPs they had become helpless. On 16.8.2003 again the condition of the patient deteriorated and he was again admitted to the OPs hospital. After Echo - cardiogram the OPs again asked the patient and the relatives to wait for some more time as the new unit was being built up. As the condition of the patient further deteriorated the OPs said they will do PTCA and advised some medicines and asked the patient to come on 6th or 7th September. The complainant took the patient to the OP hospital on 6.9.2003 but the doctors told them to continue the medicines and to wait further as the surgery unit was to start shortly. In this way the treatment of the patient was delayed on flimsy grounds. (g) On 29.9.2003 the OPs told the relatives of the patient that as long time has passed angioplasty would not do in the case and by -pass surgery would be required to be done and further told that surgical unit is to start on 6.10.2003 and by -pass surgery of the patient would be done on the same day. The relatives said that the treatment of the patient is being unnecessarily delayed. The OPs told that by -pass is the only remedy in the case of the patient and asked the relatives to arrange for an additional sum of Rs. 65,000 for the said surgery and told that after deposit of the aforesaid sum, surgery will be done. (h) On 6.10.2003 the patient was taken to the hospital but after check -up he was directed to come on 14.10.2003. He was again directed to make arrangement for blood and was directed to come on 1.11.2003. The OPs paid no heed to the complaint of the relatives that the matter is being unnecessary delayed. (i) On 29.10.2003 again the patient was admitted to the OP's hospital and after some check -up the OPs directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 65,000 imme -diately. The complainant had deposited the said amount after mortgaging her house and requested the OPs that operation may be done urgently as the same has already been delayed for a long time. (j) On 3.11.2003 OP -2 and OP -3 took signature of the complainant and her relatives on some papers and thereafter by -pass surgery of Sri Narayan Prasad was done and he was discharged on 18.11.2003 before he had completely recovered. (k) The patient persistently felt pain and the OPs were informed in this regard. On 25.11.2003 the patient was again taken to the OPs for check -up and the doctors told that as the heart was badly damaged some problems is bound to persist. The complainant and other relatives were surprised at the information given by the OPs and said that the patient was under treatment of the OPs for the past so many months and they had never informed the relatives regarding gravity of the condition and on the contrary they delayed the treatment on some pretext or the other. Earlier they had told that angioplasty will be done and subsequently they did by -pass surgery after charging additional sum and after the surgery the OPs said that the problem would persist. Such conduct on part of the OPs amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. (l) The OPs had prescribed some medicines and had said that the patient would get relief but on 4.12.2003 the patient was again required to be admitted to the hospital. He was taken to the OPs who demanded further money but the relatives resisted such demand. On 11.12.2003 the patient was put on ventilator and the OPs demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 but the relatives resisted the same by telling them that the condition of the patient had deteriorated due to delay in treatment and wrong treatment by the OPs themselves. However, the OPs told them frankly either to bring the money or to get the patient discharged. (m) The relatives arranged for the money but they were told that expenditure of Rs. 3,000 per day would be required to be paid. Despite repeated demand and payment of money the condition of the patient further deteriorated and on 24.12.2003 the patient was forcefully discharged though in bad condition and the relatives of the patient were made to sign certain papers. (n) Thereafter the patient was admitted to Medical College Hospital where the doctors told the relatives that the condition of the patient was very critical and it appeared that the treatment and operation of the patient were not properly conducted. Ultimately despite best efforts by the doctors at Medical College Hospital the patient i.e. the husband of the complainant expired on 27.12.2003. (o) It is alleged in the complaint that had the OPs provided proper treatment immediately after receiving money for treatment on 18.7.2003 the condition of the patient would not have deteriorated so much. Delay on part of OPs in treatment of the patient resulted into his death. (p) The complainant claimed Rs. 15,00,000 towards compensation for negligence on part of the OPs.
(3.) THE OPs resisted the complaint and filed joint reply. Main averments in the written version were as under: (a) The OPs have denied the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and averred that prior to 11.5.2003 the patient had suffered heart attack on 3.1.2003 also. (b) On the basis of angiography report it was told that the blockage in Left Anterior Descending and also in Diagonal was 60% -70% and in Obtuse Marginal it was 100%. OPs had advised for Myocordial Revascularisation (Bypass). (c) The OPs have denied that they had advised for Angioplasty. They further denied that the complainant was told that total expenditure in surgery would be Rs. 1,60,000. However, it is admitted that the complainant was told that package for PTCA would amount to Rs. 1,60,000. Estimate for PTCA was given at the request of the patient as at that time only the facility of PTCA was available at the hospital and the financial condition of the patient was such that he was not in a position to bear the expenses for treatment. Estimate for by -pass was not provided as the facility for by -pass was not available. (d) The OPs have averred that the patient was admitted on 21.7.2003 with the complaint of Orthopnia (difficulty in breathing) and was in the condition of heart failure and unstable condition. He was discharged from the hospital on 22.7.2003 after his condition had become stable. Medicines were also prescribed. It has been denied that at the time of discharge the OPs had told that angioplasty would be done after 3 days. (e) The OPs have averred that angioplasty was regularly performed at the OP -1 hospital and denied the allegation that they had told that staff for angioplasty comes from Delhi. It is further averred that due to financial restraints and also his physical condition the patient was not in a position to go to Delhi for treatment. On 16.8.2003 the patient was admitted to the OP hospital he was advised for PTCA as at that time only the facility of PTCA was available at the hospital but the patient was also informed that by -pass would be a better option. It is admitted that after prescribing medicines the patient was asked to come on 6th - 7th September 2003. (f) It is further averred in the written version that the patient was not brought on 6th or 7th as advised but was brought on 29.9.2003 and by that time the facility of by -pass was available at the OP hospital, hence the patient was advised for by pass and fixed the date of 6.10.2003 for by -pass surgery. (g) It is averred that the complainant has misstated the facts. Actually the OPs had demanded Rs. 60,000 towards Intra Avortic Balloon Pump and Rs. 5,000 towards medicines and they were also asked to arrange for blood but the relatives wanted time for arranging for money, hence the operation was delayed. The OPs have admitted that the patient was brought on 6.10.2003. (h) On 14.10.2003 the patient was again brought to the OP No. 1 hospital and the OPs told that they will get the patient admitted and would conduct by -pass but the relatives sought further time of 15 -20 days for arranging for money as well as for blood. Hence, the date for by pass was fixed for 1.11.2003. (i) The patient was operated on 3.11.2003 and after he became better and fit for discharge, he was discharged. The allegation regarding forceful discharge has been denied. The OPs have also denied the allegation made in the complaint regarding events subsequent to by -pass regarding deterioration in condition of the patient, demand of further money by the OPs, putting the patient on ventilator, his forceful discharge on 24.12.2003 though the patient was in critical condition. The allegation of negligence in treatment and further that the patient died due to such wrong treatment and faulty operation have also been denied. (j) All the allegations regarding deficiency in service, delay in treatment, getting money deposited though proper facilities were not available at the hospital have been specifically denied. The OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint. The OPs have reiterated the aforesaid pleas by way of additional pleadings also. The complainant filed her affidavit in support of complaint and the OP Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their affidavits in support of the written version. The OP -3 was also cross -examined before the District Forum. The complainant has placed various documents on record relating to treatment of her husband and the expenses relating thereto;