LAWS(NCD)-2023-3-63

SURESH CHANDRA PARAKH Vs. NARESH TREHAN

Decided On March 29, 2023
Suresh Chandra Parakh Appellant
V/S
Naresh Trehan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Present Complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') by Suresh Chandra Parekh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant') against Dr. Naresh Trehan and Medanta, The Medicity (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Parties') seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,68,000.00

(2.) On 31/3/2014 The Complainant Suresh Chandra Parekh, aged 74 years visited Medanta Hospital (OP-2) with problems of Angina and heaviness in chest. He was admitted on next day i.e. 1/4/2014 and Coronary Angiography (CAG) was done. It revealed 'Native Triple Vessel Disease (TVD)' consisting of LAD having 100% Blockage, LCX as Dominant vessel having Two Blockages-80 % and 50%. Thereafter, Dr. Trehan (OP-1) advised the Complainant for 'Bypass Surgery' and told that he would perform the surgery. Accordingly, on 7/4/2014 surgery was performed by OP-1. It was alleged that only one blockage (LAD) was By-passed and the remaining two blockages (LCX) were left untouched. It was further alleged that OP-1 never informed the Complainant about one vessel by-pass instead of three, neither before nor after the surgery. After removal of stiches on 21/4/2014, he was permitted to travel back to his home town at Bhopal. On 24/4/2014, the Complainant felt breathlessness and was admitted to Akshay Hospital, Bhopal. There, the doctors opined that it could be due to after effect of surgery. Since the problem continued, the Complainant went to OP-2 on 11/6/2014 and some tests were conducted. Everything was found good. Subsequently, again on 17/6/2014 night, the Complainant felt breathlessness and heaviness in chest and was admitted to Bansal Hospital, Bhopal. The doctors informed him that he suffered heart attack. Thereafter, due to repeated problem of breathlessness Angiography was done on 5/7/2014 at Bansal Hospital which revealed two blockages 100% and 75%. An emergency Angioplasty was performed and two stents were inserted. The Complainant was discharged on 8/7/2014.

(3.) Being aggrieved due to the gross negligence and deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the Consumer Compliant under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission and prayed compensation amounting to Rs.2,25,68,000.00 from the Opposite Parties.