State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Syed Riyaz Uddin, vs 1. Medwin Hospital on 14 October, 2022
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
CC.NO.222 OF 2016
Between:
Syed Riyaz Uddin,
S/o Syed Nayeemuddin,
Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No. 18-7297/4,
Imblibun, Yakutpura,
Hyderabad. Complainant
And
1. Medwin Hospital
Rep by its M.D.Dr.Byrapaneni Ramesh
Raghava Ratna Towers,
Nampally, Hyderabad-500001
2. Dr.Shakeel haider Khan,
Consultant and cardiologist in premises
Bearing M.C.No. 11-5-475,
Red Hills. ...Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant: M/s.Mohd.Adam
Counsel for the Opposite Parties Sri.Srinivas Rao Pachwa-Opl
Sri.S.M.Hussain-Op2
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.V. SESHUBABU, MEMBER
HON BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF oCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO ******* (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.Rajeshree, Member-Non -Judicial) Order
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties.
a. To declare the acts of the opposite parties as deficiency in service and direct them to pay the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the acts of deficiency in service and for the pain and suffering that the complainant and his father were put to suffer.
2. The brief facts of the caseareas followS:
That on 25.08.2014 when the complainant's father was feeling uneasy he took him to Dr.Shakeel Haider Khan i.e., Opposite party No.2, That the said doctor diagnosed the complainant's father and found that his BP was very high which was 230/130 as such advised him to take his father immediately to Medwin Hospitalop.No.1) and admit him. That the complainant had informed the doctor that they fall below the poverty line as Such entitled for benefits under Arogya shree scheme on the advice ot the said doctor on 26.08.2014 complainant took his father to Medwin Hospital for admission and treatment, and when the hospital demanded to deposit Rs.10,000/- as advance the complainant informed the hospital that as they fall under below poverty line, his father be treated under the Aarogyasri. scheme, but the hospital insisted for advance amount the complainant had also particularly mentioned that in 2009 his father as undergone a surgery of implanting a stent in the same hospital by availing Aarogyasri scheme, inspite of the same the Medwin Hospital demanded for advance amount, as such the complainant was compelled to arrange for the said Rs.10,000/- and the paid advance.
3. Thatinitially opposite party No.2 doctor without even informing the attendants of the patient had implanted a temporary pacemaker in the right leg of the complainant's father and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and when the complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount and to avail the Aarogyasri scheme the Opposite party No.1 doctor stated that he is not interested in treating the patients who come under the said scheme and demanded cash for performing the surgery and when the complainant requested the doctor that he cannot arrange the said amount, the Opposite party No.2 doctor threatened the complainant that no treatment will be provided to his father and the temporary pacemaker would be removed hence the complainant requested the RMO of Opposite party No.1 hospital to arrange for another doctor as Opposite party No.2 was not 3 interested in treating the patients who come under Aarogyasri scheme, the RMO referred him to Dr.Ramesh Babu of same hospital but the said Ramesh babu had refused to treat the complainant's father as the case is being handled by Dr.Shakeel Haider Khan(op.No.2), there after the complainant approach the RMO and requested to continue the treatment under Aarogyasri scheme but the RMO had informed that as Dr. Shakeel Haider cannot Khan(op.No.2) is insisting for cash payments, the hospital and spoil the terms with the doctor for the sake of one patient insisted to pay the amount.
Later when the complainant expressed his inability to pay party.No.2 discharged the the hospital charges Opposite complainant's father and instructed the staff of Opposite party No.1 hospital to remove the pacemaker and asked the complainant to pay an additional amount of Rs.16,000/-, later on request the said Rs.16,000/- was reduced to Rs.10,000/- this way the when complainant in total had paid Rs.20,000/- to the ops, later the complainant tried to take his father to other hospitals none of the hospitals admitted his father, finally Kamineni Hospital had come forward to admit his father and sent a technical team along with the pacemaker and the same was changed in such a volatile condition that while being shifted from Medwin to kamineni during travel the wire of the pacemaker had ruptured the vein of the heart which lead to loosing of blood in the heart which made the situation of his father more critical due to which his father had to undergo bypass surgery apart from having installed a pacemaker which has lead to extreme stress and risk of life to his father and that the said surgery at kamineni hospital was done under the Aarogyasri scheme. All these deliberate acts of Opposite parties, of not providing the medical treatment under Aarogyasri scheme and discharging the patient by removing the temporary pacemaker when patient was in a critical condition amounts to negligence which has not only caused physical sufferance and pain to the complainant's father but had also caused severe hardship and mental agony to the patient, complainant and his family members. As such the present complaint seeking compensation under the following heads. 1). Rs.10,00,000/- For not providing medical treatment under the Aarogyasri scheme, though the complainant's father was entitled for the same. 2). Rs.10,00,000/- for putting the life of the patient in jeopardy by refusing to treat when he was in critical condition and discharging him. 3). Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, for mental agony and physical suffering etc., hence the present complaint.
5. Written version filed on behalf of opposite party 1:
The Opposite Party No.1 filed their written version, while admitting the hospitalization had opposed the complaint on the grounds of maintainability and merits. And pleaded that as one Mr.Syed Nyeemuddin was their patient where as the present Complainant is filed by his son as such the same is not maintainable secondly that the grievance of the complainant pertains to applicability of Aarogyasri scheme and if the complainant had any grievance with regard to the entitlement of the benefits of the scheme he has to approach the Redressal mechanism of the said scheme and this commission has no jurisdiction to try any such complaint which is concerned to the scheme. Thirdly that the complainant had failed to join the Aarogyasri trust as party to the complaint, due to this non of necessary joinder party also the complaint is not maintainable.
6. The Opposite party further pleads that the Aarogyasri health trust has conducted an enquiry about the allegations made by the. complainant and directed this Opposite party to refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. In pursuance of the same the Opposite party had refunded the amount to the complainant by way of demand draft bearing No.735996 dt.04.06.2015 drawn on OBC, Hyderabad branch.
7. The Opposite party further pleads that when the complainant's father was brought to the hospital his condition was very critical his attendants were informed about the immediate need for stabilization of heart rhythm with temporary pacemaker implant and also explained the need to evaluate the cause of problem by doing coronary angiogram and after the consent of the family members, emergency TPI was done and after stabilization the coronary angiogram was also done. Which revealed that the RCA had 100% block and LCX had 95% block and LMCA defusecd disease, in view of such condition of the pntient was adviscd to undergo PICA stent.
8. The Oppositc party. further pleaded that the patient was admitted as a paying patient and the attendants also signed the consent form hence when the attendants of the patient asked for a discharge billing was done as Rs.16,931/-, but however as the complainant requested, the bill was reduced to Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.6,931/- was waived i.e., in total the complainant had paid out Rs.20,000/- to the hospital. And that the hospital has carried the treatment as per set protocol and procedure and also based on the requirement to the best of clinical judgment and capabilities, as such there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party.
That the complainant had invented all the allegations of Arogyasri only for the purpose of filing this complaint and to extract money from the opposite parties. Apart from that cvery to assist the hospital has a person appointed by Aarogyasri trust if the patients who want to avail the facility of the scheme, the complainant had any grievance he should have approached said "Aarogya Mitra" for any assistance. That the complainant has not given any basis for demanding such a huge compensation and only to extract money present complaint is liled as such the samne is dismissed with exemplary costs.
9. Written Version of Oppositeparty.No.2:
This opposite party had also taken the preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer and has no locus standee to file the present complaint. And as the main grievance of the complainant is with regard to non providing of Aarogyasri benefits as such it becomes necessary that the Aarogyasri trust be made party to the complaint, but the same as not been done. Hence the complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary party.
10. The Opposite party denied that the complainant falls in the below poverty line and has stated that it, has come to his knowledge that the complainant's family is a highly reputed and financially sound family and that they run many businesses like 6 the gold business in the name and style of "M/s. Riyazuddin Jewellers at shop.no.23-6-5,Bela hussian alam, Hyderabad and another jewellery shop at Shaheen nagar, apart from that the complainant runs two beauty parlors by name "Banoo's Beauty Parlor one at Chatrinaka Police station and another opposite to Pista house, Shaliband. And the complainant resides in a multi stored building as the complainant does not come under BPL he had not complained to the Aarogyasri trust during his stay in the hospitl.
11. The Opposite party further pleads that neither the complainant nor any of his family members had revealed about the alleged entitlement of Aarogyasri scheme at the time of admission the Opposite party also denied that the attendants of the patient were not informed about the condition of the patient, in fact this Opposite party had personally informed the patients wife who accompanied him with regard to the condition of the patient and also about the risk involved, only then the procedure of TPI was done. In fact the complainant had seen all the consent forms and also signed the document under "Self paying category". The Opposite party denied receiving any legal notice from the complainant and further pleaded that he is a fully qualified and trained cardiologist having over 20 years of practice in cardiology and has been maintaining very high level of medical, professional and ethical conduct. And that the complainant has filed this complaint with malafide intention and to attack the integrity of the opposite party and to extract money and that this Opposite party never makes any difference between the patients who come under Aarogyasri scheme or by paying the amount, in fact the patients who undergo CABGS need a lifelong therapy which should not be discontinued, hence the patients who cannot bear the financial burden this Opposite party identifies such patients and provides them free treatment, it is learnt that the complainant had recorded some videos while in conversation with the Opposite party and the staff of the hospital without seeking any consent which is illegal. This Opposite party had personally explained the risk involved in shifting a sick patient one who is on the TPI and when the complainant insisted for the same the Opposite parties asked him to sign the Lest against medical advice" form the complainant refused to sign the same and took the patient against the medical advice, the complainant had to actually be thankful to the Opposite parties for stabilizing the condition of his father. But the complainant is trying to tarnish the image of this Opposite party by making false allegations and only to extract money the present Hence this be dismissed with complaint has been filed. same exemplary costs.
behalf of
12. The complainant hàs filed evidence affidavit on on behalf of the PW1,2 and 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11 and has filed Opposite party No.1 V.Appa Rao the authorized signatory No.2 he the Evidence Affidavit and on behalf of opposite party himself as filed evidence affidavit.
13. Points for consideration:
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
for non-joinder of
2. Whether the complaint is bad in law necessary parties?
3. Whether the opposite parties were negligent/unfair/deficient in their services?
reliefs sought in
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for the the complaint?
5. If Yes, to what extent?
14. Point No.l:
the The grievance of the complainant is two fold firstly that, failed to provide the treatment to the opposite parties Sri Scheme, though he was complainant's father under Aarogya have entitled for the same and secondly that the opposite parties the patient in half way due to which the abruptly discharged to Kamineni hospital which patient was compelled to be shifted which the patient had had worsened the condition of patient due to to undergo Bypass Surgery and had suffered both physical pain and mental agony. In support of his case the complainant has filed Ex. Al to A11.
The preliminary objection raised by both the opposite
15. is that the complaint is not maintainable as the parties complainant does not fit into the definition of a consumer as the present complainant was not their paticnt but his father Mr.Syed Nayecmuddin was their patient and that the present complainant has no locus standee to file this complaint for this we would like to look into the act as to who falls into the category of the complainant. In Section-2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the term complainant is defined as under, "Complainant" means,--
i) a consumer ; or
i) any voluntary consumer association
registered
under The
Companies Act, 1956 or under any
other law for the time
being in force, or
(ii) the Central Government or any State
Government, who or which makes a complaint;
(iv) one or more
consumers, where there are
numerous consumers
having the Same
interest"
(v in case of death of a
consumer, his legal heir or
representative;
The
Complainant in the instant case does not fall under the any of above categories.
Admittedly and as per record
the
complainant is not a consumer as
he is not the
hired the services of patient who has
opposite party hospital and doctor, that the complainant has not apart filed any GPA nor any petition before this commission seeking the permission to represent his father in representative capacity. In the absence of the same we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainant is not a competent person to file the present complaint. Hence the point is answered against the complainant.
16. Point No. 2:
The second preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties is the non-joinder of Aarogyasri trust as party to the complaint. And the learned counsel for opposite party had vehemently argued that the main grievance of the complainant is with regard to entitlement of the Aarogyasri scheme as such the Aarogyasri trust would be the appropriate party to answer whether the complainant's father was entitled for the benefits of the scheme and non-joinder of the said trust is itsclf bad in law, hence the complaint is not maintainable. Under Ex.A11 the complainant had filed the order copy of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council, a keen perusal of the same reveals that, the medical council after conducting a thorough enquiry, had passed an order and in the said order gave a finding that "The Patient was carlier treated in 2009 by him only and Angio Plastic was performed under Aarogyasri. Since then, the patient was regularly followed up with respondent, Dr.Shakeel Haider Khan. The respondent knowing fully well that the patient is covered under Aarogyasri has sent the patient to Medwin hospitals and implantation of temporary pace maker. The patient was admitted at Medwin Hospital as a paid patient, inspite of being covered under Aarogyasri" and under page No.7 of Ex.A4 the discharge summary of Kameneni Hospital is filed which reveals that at Kameneni Hospital the patient was treated under Aarogyasri Scheme. These two documents are substantial evidence to prove that the complainant's father was entitled for the treatment under Aarogyasri scheme. Hence we feel that there is no necessity of presence of Aarogyasri trust to acertain if the complainant's father was entitled for the Aarogyasri benefits. Therefore undisputedly it can be concluded that non-joinder of Aarogyasri trust is not that fatal for the maintainability to the complaint. In view of the foregoing discussion this point is answered in the favour of the complainant.
17. POINT NO.3 &4 Now that we have concluded that the patient was entitled to be treated under Aarogyasri Scheme the point that arises is whether not treating the patient under the said scheme amounts to negligence/unfair and whether such non-provision has led to any inconvenience, sufferance and pain to the patient and also his family members.
The opposite party had not disclosed either in the written version or in their evidence/affidavit as to why the said facility was 10 not provided, except for saying that it is for tlhe complainant to approach the Aarogya Mitra to sort out the issue. But the C.D filed under Ex.A7 is the conversation by the complainant with junior doctors, nurses and he has been billing staff. Wherein asking as to why his father is deprived of being treated under Arogyasri scheme but all of them had inability as they were not the expressed their concerned folowing the instructions of the doctors persons and were and hospital. The conversation is further evident that the opposite refused to treat the party No. I haa patient under the scheme due to which the complainant was compelled to shift his father to another hospital and also the opposite party No.1 had insisted for either removal of temporary pace maker or to deposit the amount of Rs.40,000/-
towards the pace maker. As
per Ex.A3 & A4 it is
the opposite crystal clear that
party No.1 had given the timely
the patient but at the same time it was required treatment to
unfair on the part of
opposite party No. l1 to discharge the patient in critical though the opposite party No. 1 had pleaded that the condition, discharged against the medical advice but the patient was under Ex.A4 does discharge summary not disclose any such statement. That apart the medical council by its order dt.24.07.2015 under Ex.A11 had found fault with the opposite party No.2 doctor and held as under
"The Ethics Committee finds fault with the respondent knowing well that the case is having Aarogyasri coverage as the patient was treated by himself under Aarogyasri, the patient was put to hardship and forced to go to another hospital and got treated under Aarogyasri. This amounts to professional misconduct on the part of respondent Dr.Shakeel Haider Khan and the Ethics Committee recommends CENSURE him".
"n view of the decision taken by the General Body of the Council, the respondent, Dr.Shakeel Haider Khan is hereby CENSURED for the acts of professional mis-conduct on his part".
In the instant case Opposite party No.2 is working for Opposite party No. lhospital and opposite party No.1 is vicariously liable for the acts of Opposite party No.2, that apart it was also the bounded duty of Opposite party No.1 to verify and ascertain whether the 11 complainant's father was entitled for treatment under Aarogyasri scheme.
The society looks up to the doctors and medical fraternity with great expectations and respect and in fact the doctors are considered as next to God, who are the life savers, but in the instant case the doctor opposite party No.2 who had once i.e., in 2009 treated the patient under Aarogyasri Scheme was reluctant to treat the same patient under the Aarogyasri scheme knowing fully well the condition of the patient which was uncalled for.
In view of the above discussion we hold that the opposite party No.1 & 2 were certainly deficient and unfair in their services by not providing their services to the patient under Aarogyasri scheme.
With regard to the allegation of the complainant that due to such abrupt discharge of the patient who was in a critical condition it had led to rupture of the vein in heart and due to which the complainant's father was compelled to undergo bypass medical record surgery, but no proof is filed to that effect nor any of Kamineni Hospital is produced to show that patient had undergo from one bypass surgery due to rupture in vein during shifting it hospital to another in the absence of any documentary proof cannot be concluded that the patient had to undergo bypass surgery due to the negligence of opposite parties.
In view of the foregoing discussions though we hold that the opposite party were deficient in their services by not treating unfair on their patient under Aarogyasri scheme and that it was condition which might have part to discharge a patient in critical and sufferance to the certainly caused severe inconvenience, pain patient and also caused hardship and mental agony to the family held in point No.1 the complaint is not members, but as maintainable as the complainant neither falls under the definition "Consumer" "Complainant" as per the Consumer of the or Protection Act, 1986.
hold that the complainant is Hence, we have no hesitation to liable to be dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.
1218. POINT NO.5: In the result, the complaint is dismissed, however there is no order as to costs.