SURINDER SINGH Vs. ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surinder Singh has filed the present complaint under section 21 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( in short, the 'Act') seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.32,00,000/- with interest alongwith cost alleging medical negligence on the part of the OP / Hospital and Doctors. Initially a complaint was preferred against M/s Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi and Dr. A.K. Omar but subsequently by way of amendment the complainant impleaded Dr. Naresh Trehan also as OP No.3.

(2.) Briefly stated allegations in the complaint are that on 14.11.2001 the complainant took his wife Varinder Kaur to the OP No.1 Hospital for treatment. She was examined at the hospital and a package deal of Rs.3,35,000/- was offered which included the treatment as also the heart surgery besides costs of tests required and preparation of video film. The complainant deposited the same amount with OP No.1 and his wife was admitted. She was put to various examination and ultimately it was declared that wife of the complainant required by-pass surgery but before that her blood glucose level was to be brought under control. It is alleged that on 24.11.2001 Varinder Kaur was taken to the operation theatre and was operated upon inspite of the fact that she had suffered a cardiac arrest. It is the case of the complainant that after sometime, he was told that operation was successful and the patient had been removed to the ICU. However, no relative including the complainant as also sons and daughters of the patient were allowed to see her. Complainant, however, was asked to bring medicines on various occasions till 26.11.2011 which were supplied. It is alleged that from 14.11.2001 till 26.11.2001 all the family members of the complainant remained at the Institute's waiting hall taking turns. After the so-called surgery, the complainant and other relations were told that patient was progressing very well. Surprisingly on 26.11.2001 at 12.30 p.m., the hospital authorities informed the complainant that his wife Varinder Kaur had expired. It is alleged that complainant and relations came to know that Varinder Kaur had expired on 24.11.2001 before she could be operated. Despite that her dead body was given incisions to give an impression that the surgery was actually conducted. There were no blood stains on the body which indicated that the body was cut after the death. The complainant then demanded video clip of the alleged by-pass surgery but he was told that no video film was prepared. It is also alleged that out of total sum charged by OP No.1, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was refunded on the plea that video film was not prepared.

(3.) Claiming the above referred conduct of the OPs to be unfair trade practice as also negligence and deficiency in service, the complainant filed the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.32,00,000/- with interest besides cost.