State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pragma Hospital vs Subash Chander on 4 May, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.555 of 2019
Date of institution : 26.08.2019
Reserved on : 05.04.2022
Date of decision : 04.05.2022
1. Pragma Hospital, Bhatti Road, Bathinda 151001, through its
Owner/Incharge/Director/Manager.
2. Dr. Gursewak Singh Gill, Pragma Hospital, Bhatti Road,
Bathinda 151001.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2
Versus
1. Subash Chander aged about 68 years S/o Banwari Lal, R/o
H. No.31186, Gali No.12, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda.
.....Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Redical Health Technologies, SCO 138, FF, Sector 24-D,
Chandigarh 160023, through its Owner/Manager/Authorized
Signatory.
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 42-C, 3rd Floor, Moolchand
Commercial Complex, New Delhi, through its Manager.
.....Respondents No.2&3/Opposite Parties No.3&4
2) First Appeal No.523 of 2019
Date of institution : 13.08.2019
Order reserved on : 05.04.2022
Date of decision : 04.05.2022
Subash Chander aged about 64 years S/o Banwari Lal, R/o
H.No.31186, Gali No.12, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda.
....Appellant/Complainant
First Appeal No.555 of 2019 2
Versus
1. Pragma Hospital, Bhatti Road, Bathinda-151001, through its
Owner/Incharge/Director/Manager.
2. Dr. Gursewak Singh Gill, Pragma Hospital, Bhatti Road,
Bathinda-151001.
3. Redical Health Technologies, SCO 138, FF, Sector 24-D,
Chandigarh 160023, through its Owner/Manager/Authorized
Signatory.
4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 42-C, 3rd Floor, Moolchand
Commercial Complex, New Delhi, through its Manager.
..... Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeals under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against
the same order dated 03.07.2019 passed
by District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum (now 'Commission'),
Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present(F.A. No.555 of 2019):-
For the appellants : Sh. Rohit Kumar, Advocate with Dr. G.S. Gill, in person For respondent No.1 : Sh. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None For respondent No.3 : Ms. Samo Devi, Advocate for Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate First Appeal No.555 of 2019 3 JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT Vide this common order, above said two First Appeals preferred against the impugned order dated 03.07.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (now in short, "the District Commission"), are being disposed of as the complaint was allowed against opposite parties No.1 and 2 and dismissed qua opposite parties No.3 and 4.
2. Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 have filed First Appeal No.555 of 2019 for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission. On the other hand, First Appeal No.523 of 2019 has been filed by the complainant/appellant for enhancement of amount of compensation alongwith interest and litigation expenses. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.555 of 2019 titled as "Pragma Hospital & Anr. v. Subash Chander & Ors".
3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly the facts as made out in the complaint are that complainant -Subash Chander suddenly fell ill on 25.08.2014 and he was admitted in the Hospital of OP No.1 i.e. Pragma Hospital on the reference of Dr.Mohinder Singh. OP No.2-Dr.Gursewak Singh Gill, (DM Cardiologist), being the owner of the Hospital was running the same. A Pace Maker PPI [St. Jude Medical VVI Pacemaker 5056, supplied by OP No.3 to OPs No.1 & 2] was First Appeal No.555 of 2019 4 inserted by OP No.2 on his right side of the chest. OP No.3 did not issue bill to the complainant of said pacemaker and other articles at that time, but it was issued on 03.07.2015 after 11 months when a legal notice was served upon OP No.3. The complainant was discharged from Hospital on 28.08.2014 and an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- (inclusive Rs.60,000/- charges of pace maker) was claimed/charged by OPs No.1 and 2 from the complainant without issuing any bill. On demand, OPs No.1 & 2 refused to issue the bills and only one receipt of Rs.60,000/- was issued on plain paper with stamp of OP No.1 Hospital. It has further been mentioned that during the follow up treatment fluid was collected and infection was started from the place where the pacemaker was inserted. OP No.2 prescribed medicines on each and every date of follow up but of no avail and ultimately he referred the complainant to one Dr. namely Raman Goyal, Mch. Plastic Surgeon at Deol Hospital, Power House Road, Bathinda. The infection was due to infected pacemaker supplied by OP No.3 and the wrong treatment given by OPs No.1 and 2. He visited Global Health Care Dr. Sharad Gupta, DM Cardiology, Batra Hospital and Apollo Hospital, Delhi and all the doctors advised to remove the said pacemaker because of infection. He immediately visited OPs No.1 and 2, but no satisfactory reply was given. Thereafter, he admitted in Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre, New Delhi on 20.05.2015 where he was operated upon first to remove the infected pacemaker from the right side and for inserting new pacemaker on First Appeal No.555 of 2019 5 the left side of the chest. Batra Hospital charged Rs.97,710/- for the same. It was further mentioned that due to negligence and wrong treatment of OPs No.1, 2 and 3 the complainant suffered not only financial loss, but mental tension, agony and harassment also. He prayed for compensation of Rs.16,40,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- as well as Rs.50,000/- for further medical expenses.
5. Notices were issued to the OPs. OPs No.1 and 2 who filed their joint written reply denying all the averments made by the complainant. However, OP No.4 filed its separate written reply. Complaint against OP No.3 was already rejected by the District Commission, vide order dated 29.07.2015.
6. After going through the contents of complaint, written replies, documents and evidence available on record, the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint against OPs No.1 and 2 and dismissed qua OPs No.3 and 4.
7. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants/OPs No.1&2 have filed First Appeal No.555 of 2019. First Appeal No.523 of 2019 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of amount of compensation with interest and litigation expenses.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/OP No.1 and Dr. G.S. Gill (OP No.2) of First Appeal No.555 of 2019 submits that invoice dated 26.08.2018, Ex.C-1, was issued to the complainant. The District Commission has not taken into consideration the said First Appeal No.555 of 2019 6 invoices. OP No.1 Hospital has also placed on record certificate dated 27.07.2017 issued by St. Jude Medical India Pvt. Ltd, Ex.OP1/9, proving that the pacemaker was new one and was not infected. This certificate has not been taken into consideration by the District Commission. The complainant visited OP No.1 Hospital on numerous occasions for check up and some infection was noticed and best treatment was given for curing the infection. Thereafter the complainant never turned up for follow up. Learned counsel also submits that OPs No.1 and 2 had informed the complainant and his family member that minor problems may occur and a written consent was also obtained for which OPs No.1 and 2 could not be held liable and the District Commission has not taken into consideration all these facts. The complainant was discharged from the Hospital and it was the duty of the complainant and his family members to take care of the patient. Learned counsel also submits that the District Commission has not taken into consideration the fact that certain surgical or procedures are not foolproof and on certain occasions complications may develop even when doctors have provided high-standard care. Human body is complex and it would be unwise to expect that doctors can always foresee and control how it would react to a surgery. The services provided by the doctors were to the best of their abilities and the complainant was informed risk in implantation of pacemaker and the same were explained before giving treatment to the complainant and his family members. First Appeal No.555 of 2019 7 Learned counsel has relied upon medical literature Interaventional Electrophysiology by IGOR Singer and First Appeal No.876 of 2010, titled as Prem Nath Gupta Versus Dayanand Medical College & Hospital & another, decided on 27.01.2014 by this Commission in support of his contentions. Learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission and dismissal of appeal No.523 of 2019 filed by the appellant/complainant
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant of First Appeal No.523 of 2019 has opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 in F.A. No.555 of 2019 and has argued to the contrary. He has contended that the District Commission rightly allowed the complaint of the appellant/complainant but had awarded a meager amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation whereas the appellant/complainant was entitled to the compensation of Rs.16,40,000/- i.e. 7,00,000/- for sufferings, Rs.3,00,000/- on account of medical charges, as per facts and circumstances of the case. Respondent No.1 and 2/opposite party No.1 and 2 charged Rs.1,40,000/- including Rs.60,000/- of pace maker charges from the appellant/complainant. No proper bill has been issued by opposite parties No.1 and 2. The District Commission has not ordered for refund of money charged illegally by opposite parties No.1 and 2. Pacemaker inserted by opposite parties was visible out of body of the appellant/complainant with the naked eyes due to wrong First Appeal No.555 of 2019 8 operation and which has resulted into infection in the body. The appellant has spent Rs.4,40,000/- on medical treatment and other expenses and Rs.5,00,000/- is a meager amount. The appellant/complainant has been taking treatment, special diet, medicines regularly after second surgery. Medical negligence on the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2 has prolonged illness and longer recovery period due to which there was loss of income, pain and suffering. Learned counsel prays for modification of the impugned by enhancing the amount of compensation with interest.
10. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties. We have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the District Commission and other documents available on the record.
11. The short question for adjudication in the present appeals is as to whether the allegations of 'negligence', 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' as alleged by the respondent No.1/complainant against the appellants/opposite parties amount to a case of 'medical negligence'?
12. Medical negligence is a complicated issue and the liability of a doctor depends upon a number of factors and circumstances brought on record by the parties. There may be some cases where 'deficiencies/negligence in service' provided by the doctors appear to be apparent but in some of the cases the evidence is not on record and in the absence of any evidence available on record, the doctor cannot be held responsible for such First Appeal No.555 of 2019 9 allegations. The cases of medical negligence can broadly be categorized as under:
i) The doctor does not give immediate treatment to the patient or when it is required.
ii) The doctor does not take necessary precaution as per the medical assistance of giving the test dose of medicine which are likely to be fatal in some of the cases or may cause allergy.
iii) The Post-operative treatment is not given properly.
iv) The surgical wound is caused at different place than the required.
v) After operation, septicemia or gangrene takes place.
vi) Improper prescription of dugs/medicines is provided. In case of fever and that too without knowing the cause of fever, combination of tables and injections for fever are freely used on trial basis or due to any error.
vii) Mal-practice adopted by the doctors, such as the investigation reports or there are certain infirmity in the reports or investigations prescribed.
13. In some of the cases, there may be allegations that surgery has been done but it was not required or there is a delay in performing the surgery. In some of the cases or instances of death on table or there can be causes of infection which occurred while the patient remained admitted in the hospital. In some of the First Appeal No.555 of 2019 10 cases of emergency, the doctors do not promptly look after the patient or transfuse wrong blood.
14. Moreover, much expectations are there from the medical practitioners to take due care and caution while giving treatment as per the established medical jurisprudence. Meaning thereby, if someone has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, no question of deficiency would arise.
15. In case of 'medical negligence', the issue for consideration is to examine as to whether the treating doctor was sufficiently qualified to provide treatment and doctor was sufficiently competent and he has also observed due and necessary precaution. It is also necessary to know as to whether timely/necessary steps for treating the patient were taken or not? The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital reported in (2010) 3 SCC 480 has held in Para-94 as under:
"94. On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries specially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:-
I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of First Appeal No.555 of 2019 11 human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
III. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.
IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action First Appeal No.555 of 2019 12 in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession. VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.
X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners. XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals."
16. In some of the cases, the allegations of medical negligence are defended by taking a plea of bonafide mistake which under certain circumstances may be excusable but sometimes the mistake may tantamount to negligence, which cannot be excused/pardoned.
17. For determining the case of 'medical negligence' in a particular case, it is to be seen as to whether the conduct, action or omission of a doctor can result into a case of 'medical First Appeal No.555 of 2019 13 negligence' or not. It is also to be seen as to whether the medical practitioner, who is having various types of duties towards his/her patient, has acted with reasonable degree of skill and knowledge or he/she has exercised a reasonable degree of care. However, the skill of a medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor. There may be more than one course of treatment, which may be advisable for treating a patient. The Courts are quite conscious when allegations of negligence are alleged in the case. It is to be seen/judged as to whether the doctor has performed his/her duties to the best of his/her abilities with all due care and caution. Medical opinion differs with regard to course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient but in case the doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession, the Court finds that the doctor has taken proper and due care. In case, still patient does not survive or suffers with serious ailment, it would be difficult to hold that the doctor has been guilty of medical negligence.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab Appeal (Crl.) No.144- 145 of 2004 decided on 05.08.2005 as under:
"A medical practitioner faced with an emergency ordinarily tries his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act. Obviously, therefore, it will be for the complainant to clearly make out a case of negligence before a medical practitioner is charged with or proceeded against criminally. A surgeon with shaky hands under fear First Appeal No.555 of 2019 14 of legal action cannot perform a successful operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine to his patient.
Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: 'duty', 'breach' and 'resulting damage'.
Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that First Appeal No.555 of 2019 15 profession. It is not necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch which he practices. ...... A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to approve the test as laid down in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee. The relevant principles culled out from the case of Jacob Mathew (supra) are reproduced as under:
"b. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence.
c. A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence."First Appeal No.555 of 2019 16
20. In view of the facts as mentioned above and the observations made by the Courts, now it is to be seen by considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as to whether the treatment given by the concerned doctor to the patient was as per medical norms and also that the doctor attending the patient was qualified to impart treatment and prompt in providing the treatment.
21. In the present case, the complainant was admitted in opposite party No.1-Hospital and on 26.08.2014, Pace Maker PPI (St. Jude Medical VVI Pacemaker 5056) was inserted on the right side of the chest of the complainant. Said pacemaker was supplied by opposite party No.3 to opposite parties No.1 & 2 directly along with Isoflex Lead-1948/58 & Peel Away Sheath-7F. As per allegations made by the complainant, said pacemaker was infected and it was visible out of the body of the complainant with naked eyes. This fact was brought to the notice of the doctor but nothing was done. Thereafter, the complainant approached Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, New Delhi and was admitted there on 20.05.2015. He was again operated twice, firstly on the right side for removal of the previous infected pacemaker inserted by opposite party No.2 and thereafter new pacemaker was inserted on the left side of the chest of the complainant. An amount of ₹97,710/- was charged from the complainant. As per allegations made in the complaint, due to acts of appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2, the complainant suffered First Appeal No.555 of 2019 17 great mental tension, agony, harassment and financial loss as well. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant has produced evidence. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, opposite parties No.1 & 2 also tendered into evidence the affidavit and other documents. The complainant/patient was also referred for plastic surgery.
22. Before the District Commission, the opposite parties also produced on record the medical literature (Ex.OP-1/7) to show that incident of infection after pacemaker implantation was up to 2%. The opposite parties also produced treatment record (Ex.OP-1/8) to show that the patient was already informed about the consequences/seriousness of the disease. The complainant was also given option for going to some better Institute for treatment. He was also given medicines and antibiotics as well as other treatment to control the infection.
23. As per further allegations in the complaint made by the complainant, it was mentioned that the pacemaker used was infected but no evidence was produced on record to prove this allegation. As per stand of opposite parties No.1 & 2, every efforts were made to avoid any infection for any reason. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 also produced relevant part of literature to prove that there were less than 2% cases where infection occurs while implanting the pacemaker. It was also stated on the basis of medical literature that the infection was not a rule but was an exception and could be avoided by taking some precautions. First Appeal No.555 of 2019 18
24. By considering the contentions of both the parties, the District Commission partly allowed against opposite parties No.1 & 2 and was dismissed against opposite parties No.3 & 4, vide impugned order dated 03.07.2019 and a sum of ₹5,00,000/- was awarded on all counts i.e. all expenditure incurred/to be incurred on treatment and compensation for causing mental and physical suffering as well as cost of ₹10,000/-.
25. The concerned Doctor namely Dr. Gursewak Singh Gill was present in the Court at the time of arguments. He was heard in person. He explained all the circumstances by relying upon the relevant literature. He himself has stated that up to that time, he had done a number operations of implanting pacemakers but in a very few cases, such like situation has occurred and in majority of the cases he has remained successful. In a very few cases, infection can also occur and that too not because of the negligence on the part of the doctor. Many reasons are there but it is not mainly because of negligence on the part of the concerned doctor. There is no allegation against the concerned doctor that he was not qualified for providing said treatment. The District Commission has also given a finding that it was proved on record that the pacemaker, which was inserted, was clean and sterilized. After infection, the treatment was also given by giving antibiotics and when it was not controlled, then the doctor was not having any option except to remove the pacemaker and to insert it on the other side. Nothing has come on record before the District First Appeal No.555 of 2019 19 Commission that opposite party No.2-doctor was not competent to do the operation or he was not qualified. The complainant himself has produced on record copy of Retail Invoice (Ex.C-1) to prove that the pacemaker was purchased directly from the supplier and there was no evidence to prove that the pacemaker was infected. Meaning thereby, the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint with regard to infection in the pacemaker have not been proved. On the other hand, it has been proved on the basis of medical literature produced by opposite parties No.1 & 2 that incident of infection after implantation of pacemaker is up to 2%. It has also been proved on record that the patient was given proper treatment, as is clear from treatment record (Ex.OP-1/8). It has also been proved on record that when infection did not come under control, the only choice was left to remove that pacemaker and implant the same on the other side.
26. It has also been proved on record that the complainant has not been able to prove that opposite party No.2-Dr. Gursewak Singh Gill was not professionally trained or he remained negligent while transmitting/implanting the pacemaker. Rather, it has been proved on record that opposite party No.2 was qualified and senior doctor with vast experience in the same field and he also possessed the requisite knowledge and skill in the subject to perform surgery for implantation of the pacemaker. In our considered opinion, no medical evidence or any expert has been produced by the complainant to prove that it was a case of First Appeal No.555 of 2019 20 'medical negligence' on the part of the treating doctor while performing surgery of implantation of the pacemaker. Moreover, the complainant was under legal obligation to prove a specific kind of negligence on the part of the doctor, who performed the surgery and also required to prove that second surgery was done due to improper performance of conventional surgery or to prove that in case the complainant had suffered because of incompetency or negligence on the part of concerned doctor. It has also not been proved on record that second surgery could have been avoided or there was no necessity of second implantation of pacemaker.
27. From the facts and discussion as mentioned above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any negligence or any fault on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 while performing the first surgery. In our view, opposite party No.2-Dr. Gursewak Singh Gill has treated the patient as per standard medical protocols. Nothing has come on record that the pacemaker implanted earlier was infected or the infection occurred while implanting the pacemaker or the concerned doctor was not qualified or he did not adopt the requisite method while conducting the surgery.
28. Accordingly, finding force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2, we allow the appeal i.e. First Appeal No.555 of 2019 filed by the appealnts/opposite parties No.1 & 2 and dismiss the appeal i.e. First Appeal No.523 of 2019 filed by respondent First Appeal No.555 of 2019 21 No.1/complainant. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the District Commission is set aside and the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant is dismissed.
29. In First Appeal No.555 of 2019, the appellants had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another sum of ₹1,00,000/- was deposited vide receipt dated 24.09.2019 in compliance of order 12.09.2019 passed by this Commission. Both these amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to appellant No.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
30. The above appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of work and less staff.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER May 04, 2022.
(Gurmeet S)