Page 1

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6284 OF 2014

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL.) NO. 18367 OF 2012)

MRS. KANTA

… APPELLANT

VERSUS

TAGORE HEART CARE & RESEARCH

CENTRE PVT. LTD.& ANR.

…RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

The complainant-appellant, aggrieved by the

order dated May 27, 2011 passed by the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the National Commission’), setting

aside the Order dated July 14, 2006 of the Punjab

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’)

Page 2

JUDGMENT

granting her compensation of Rupees five lacs, has

preferred this Special Leave Petition.

Leave granted.

Bereft of unnecessary details, facts giving

rise to the present appeal are that the

complainant-appellant Mrs. Kanta, aged about 55

years at the relevant time, suffered acute chest

pain in the last week of August, 1999. She

consulted a medical practitioner at Amritsar who

found her symptoms to be of heart attack.

Accordingly, she was advised to obtain opinion and

treatment of a cardiologist and cardio vascular

surgeon. She was taken to Jalandhar by her family

members where they consulted Dr. Raman Chawla

(Respondent No.2 herein), attached to Tagore Heart

Care and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Research Centre’, (Respondent

No.1 herein). Dr. Chawla examined the complainant

clinically on September 1, 1999 and conducted Echo

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

test.

Dr. Chawla noticed that there was

possibility of blockages which needed appropriate

confirmation and medical treatment and accordingly

he advised for admission of the complainant in the

Research Centre for conducting angiography. It was

made known by the complainant that she is allergic

to almost all the antibiotics except few. Dr.

Chawla with the consent of the complainant’s son, a

medical

practitioner,

decided

to

conduct

angiography on September 2, 1999.

It is the allegation of the complainant that

the angiography was to be performed in the morning

of September 2, 1999 but it was not done at the

scheduled time but was performed in the afternoon.

The complainant was not allowed to take any food

the previous night. The complainant has alleged

that during the angiography procedure, she felt

severe pain in the abdomen and brought the said

fact to the notice of Dr. Chawla but he ignored the

same and continued with the procedure. After the

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

procedure was completed, according to the

complainant, she was shifted to the recovery room.

Angiogram showed LAD artery blockage to the extent

of 95 per cent. It has been specifically alleged

by the complainant that Dr. Chawla took consent of

her son for performance of PTCA or angioplasty for

removal of the blockage, yet it was given up in the

midway after about 15-20 minutes on the pretext

that she was allergic to many drugs. According to

the complainant, she was shifted to Intensive Care

Unit (ICU) and though she had severe pain

throughout the night, yet nobody attended her. On

September 3, 1999, according to the complainant,

Dr. Chawla alongwith another consultant namely Dr.

Suri examined her who found pulse of her right leg

practically absent and as such he reprimanded Dr.

Chawla. The complainant was discharged from the

Research Centre and thereafter she came to Delhi

and consulted Dr. Trehan of the Escorts Heart

Institute, Delhi and was admitted in the said

Institute on September 13, 1999.

Another

4

Page 5

JUDGMENT

angiography was conducted at the Escorts Heart

Institute through radial artery of the right arm

and on that basis, according to the complainant,

Dr.