FORTIS HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD Vs. TARLOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.