Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant was employed as Associate Professor in the Department of Cardiology, GB.Pant Hospital when the respondent approached him for fitting of Pace Maker. The first operation for fitting of Pace Maker was performed on 4th August, 1995 but the pace maker was not fitted on the ground that machinery and equipment had not reached. He was again operated on 17th August, 1995. He remained in hospital for 32 days. He was again admitted on 2nd May, 1996 and another operation was performed on 25th May, 1996 for putting the Pace setting device in order but the chewing continued even after the operation. He was again admitted on 11th August, 1997. Thereafter two more operations were conducted in which position of the same pace maker fitted originally was shifted from one side to another and vice versa. Thereafter two more operations were conducted and again the sides of the pacemaker were changed. Inspite of so many operations chewing problem continued. On having been operated so many occasions the total expenses of Rs. 1,06,075/-

were incurred. The respondent filed the instant complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 3.50 lacs on account of irreparable loss, mental harassment and agony.

3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the comments of G.P. Pant Hospital were called for . According to these comments since the patient developed local infection only the lead was changed for which additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- was incurred. However to avoid additional cost , P.G. (Pulse Generator pace maker ) was got gas sterilized and the gas sterilized P.G. was refitted from right side to left side but since sterilized pace maker was also giving trouble the position of the instrument was again changed. The basic idea was to save the cost of the new pace maker and thus the additional cost / financial burden which the patient might have to bear was saved. The hospital also stated that the comments of Dr. D.S. Gambhir , appellant , who was no longer with the hospital, if required, may be obtained from him at Kailash Hospital, Noida where he is working at present.

4. However, aforesaid comments of the Institute did not find favour with the District Forum on the premise of the medical literature showing that once the pacemaker has been infected, it is not to be reused for any reason and is to be returned to the manufacturer and the cost factor mentioned by the G.B. Pant Hospital in their report is also not maintainable as the cost was to be borne out by the employer of the respondent and not by the respondent.

5. However, on the basis of the record of the AIIMS, respondent no. 2 was absolved of having supplied defective pace maker. Appellant was held guilty for deficiency in service firstly for reasons that once pacemaker was not received, appellant should have ascertained this fact before opening the body of respondent and secondly series of operations were conducted by the appellant and the position of the same pace maker (by sterilizing the same) was frequently changed from one side to another. The infected pace maker should not have been installed by way of subsequent operations.