Doctors cannot be held liable for negligence if they exercised standard care and the delay in treatment is due to the complainant's actions.

1. The present Complaint has been filed under S.21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Aashutosh Pramod Srivastava & his brother Savivek Pramod Srivastava (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainants') against the Opposite Parties Dr. Rahul Patil (OP - 1) & Ruby Hall Clinic (OP - 2), for the alleged medical negligence and wrong treatment which resulted into untimely death of their mother.

2. The Complaint
2.1 The Complainants' mother, Mrs. Veena Pramod Srivastava, (since 'deceased', hereinafter referred to as the 'patient') was suffering from anxiety and diabetes. On 3.6.2015, she complained uneasiness, and restlessness. Initially, treatment form local doctor was taken who suggested consulting a cardiologist. Thereafter, she was taken to Inamdar Hospital wherein no experienced cardiologist was available. Therefore, she took discharge and on 5.6.2015, taken to Dr. Rahul Patil, a cardiologist (OP - 1) at Ruby Hall Clinic (OP - 2). After examination, OP - 1 advised the patient to undergo angiography and angioplasty to remove the blockage.
2.2 It was alleged that OP - 1 openly demanded his personal fee of Rs.40,000 in cash payment, though there cashless Mediclaim insurance policy of Rs.6 lakh coverage. As the Complainants, having no other option, paid the said amount in cash to OP - 1. After the payment, OP - 1 agreed to perform the angiography and informed the Complainants that there was one blockage and advised angioplasty. The angioplasty surgery was performed successfully, and the patient was discharged from the hospital on 12.6.2015. It was alleged that during the procedure, he mentioned about another block and its angioplasty would cost Rs.1,50,000 apart from the other expenses. The total expenses would go around Rs.5 to 6 lac excluding the additional cash payment. It was further alleged that, post - operatively, the Electronic Blood Pressure Machine was giving wrong readings, yet the Patient was administered medicine / drugs based on those wrong readings.
2.3 On 18.6.2015 at around 2 a.m. the Complainants' mother experienced respiratory problems. Therefore, immediately contacted OP - 1 and took her to OP - 2 Hospital at around 6 a.m. However, despite several requests, the OP - 1 never arrived at that time. Therefore, Complainants managed to get another cardiologist, Dr. Shah, at the OP - 2 hospital, but unfortunately, it was too late. As a result, the patient was declared dead due to cardiac arrest at 8 a.m.
2.4 Being aggrieved, the Complainants, filed this Consumer Complaint before this Commission and prayed sum of Rs.5,13,584 along with interest @ 10% p.a. towards medical expenses Rs,5,00,00,000 as a compensation and Rs.1,00,000 towards cost of litigation.

3. Defence:
3.1 The OPs - 1 & 2 filed their combined Written Versions, denying allegations of medical negligence. The preliminary objection was that the Complaint is defective because of misjoinder and non - joinder of necessary parties.
3.2 The OPs further submitted that the complainant intentionally concealed important facts, including the patient's past medical history and visits to other hospitals except visit to Inamdar Hospital. Also did not reveal details of treatments three days prior. The complainants lodged a police complaint in Koregaon Park police station with alleged charge under S.300 of IPC. The matter was referred to an expert Committee at Sassoon General Hospital and B.J. Medical College. The expert Committee ruled out any negligence or deficiency of the OPs.

4. Arguments:
4.1 None appeared for the Complainant today and on previous date 24.2.2023. The learned Counsel for OPs and the OP - 1 Dr. Rahul Patil were present on previous dates and today. I have perused the wri