AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated, 06-04-2011 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, ''the State Commission''), in First Appeal No. 1375/2005 - Tarlok Singh Vs. Fortis Heart Institute & Multi Speciality Hospital & Anr. by which while allowing appeal partly order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and compensation was awarded.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent approached opposite party/petitioner hospital on 22-12-2002 for treatment and deposited Rs.1,50,000/-. Angiography was performed on 25-12-2002 and later on doctors advised that operation has to be conducted and demanded another amount of Rs. 1 lakh which was deposited. It was further submitted that on 28-12-2002 complainant was operated and it was told to him that one stent was inserted in one of the arteries and complainant was discharged on 05-01-2003. After discharging, on account of pain, complainant approached PGI, Chandigarh and doctors of the hospital apprised him that opposite party has not provided complete record. It was further submitted that CD of angiography was given but CD of operation performed on 28-12-2002 was not given. Later on in another hospital his major heart surgery was done and it was found that earlier no stent was inserted by opposite party though opposite party charged money. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and
submitted that angiography was done on 25-12-2002. It revealed that complainant was having single vessel disease and LAD was 100% blocked so revascularization of the same was recommended. It was further submitted that cardiologist tried to cross the lesion with a wire but as artery was 100% blocked, blockage could not be opened with wire so angioplasty could not be performed. Complainant was neither charged for PTCA nor for stents and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complaint was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and opposite party was directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of non-supply of complete patient''s record, against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.
As there is delay of only one day, delay stands condoned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of supplying full medical record to the opposite party, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint partly, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.
This Commission vide order dated 12-10-2011 made reference to Department of Cardiology, AIIMS to constitute medical board to opine on the subject and expert opinion given by AIIMS runs as under:-- "With reference to your letter dated 28 th October the matter was discussed by three senior Specialists and their comments are as follows:--
A diagnostic angiogram is always done prior to starting a PTCA. This is stored in the machine and a CD can be made. Therefore, it should be made available when required.
During a PTCA, majority of the initial steps (till a wire crossed the lesion) are under fluoroscopy guide and may not be recorded. Therefore if the wire did not cross the legion, it is possible that the attempt would not have been angiographically recorded. As per expert''s opinion diagnostic angiogram is stored in machine, hence CD can be made and that can be made available.
Perusal of complaint itself reveals that CD of angiography was given to the complainant. According to aforesaid expert opinion during PTCA majority of the initial steps (till a wire crossed the lesion) under fluoroscopy guide may not be recorded and if wire did not cross the legion it is possible that attempt would not have been angiographically recorded. Opposite party in its written statement specifically pleaded that wire did not cross the legion so angioplasty could not be performed and in such circumstances no CD was required to be made. Learned State Commission has committed error in holding that opposite party failed to supply complete treatment record and committed error in granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- and impugned order is liable to set aside.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 06-04-2011 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, ''the State Commission''), in First Appeal No. 1375/2005 - Tarlok Singh Vs. Fortis Heart Institute & Multi Speciality Hospital & Anr. is set aside and order of District Forum is affirmed with no order as to costs.