IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 15.12.2017 Date of hearing: 29.03.2023 Date of Decision: 11.09.2023 COMPLAINT CASE NO.-2022/2017 IN THE MATTER OF MR. MOGES ALEMU C/O SRIVASTAVA & ASSOCIATES

17, CENTRAL LANE BENGALI MARKET NEW DELHI -110001 (Through: Mr Vinayak Srivastava, Advocate)

…Complainant VERSUS

1. INDRAPRASTHA APOLLO HOSPITALS SARITA VIHAR, DELHI MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI- 110076 (Through: Mr. Lakshay Luthra,, Advocate) 2. MEDICAL DEVICES INDIA PVT LTD UNIT NO. 805-807, DLF TOWER B, DISTRICT CENTRE, JASOLA, NEW DELHI-110019 (Through: Mr. Uttam Singh, Advocate)

…Opposite Parties CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HO’BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: None for Complainant.

Dr. Lalit Bhasin & Mr. Lakshay Luthra, Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 Mr.Uttam Singh, Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties and has prayed for the following reliefs:

“1. To grant a sum of Rs.90 lacs (Ninety Lakhs only) alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realization along with the cost of the present proceedings in favour of the Complainant due to deficiency in service, physical and mental agony caused to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties.

2. May pass any other order or orders which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit proper under the facts and circumstances of the case against the Respondents and in favour of the Complainant”

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are that the Complainant is the brother of the deceased Mr. Tesfaye Alamu (hereinafter referred to as the patient), who was a resident of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The patient was having breathing problems and the Doctors in Ethiopia recommended him treatment abroad. In order to get the patient’s medical treatment done, the Complainant got in touch with the Opposite Party No.1- Hospital branch at New Delhi. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 vide its email dated 27.04.2015 confirmed its ability to give the medical treatment as required. The Opposite Party No.1 further facilitated issuance of the Visa from the Indian Embassy by issuing Supporting Documents. On 12.05.2015, the patient accompanied by Complainant's wife Ms. Adanech Solomon and Complainant, travelled to India to seek medical attention in the Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Based on the report sent from Addis Ababa, Opposite Party No.1 confirmed that they could treat the patient at a total cost of USD $6,500. Thereafter, the patient was received by Dr Anoop K. Ganjoo, Consultant Cardiac Surgeon of Opposite Party No.1 who prescribed some routine medical tests and told the patient to come back the following day for Angiography Test. Subsequently, Angiography Test was conducted by Dr. R.K .Rajput, Sr. Consultant Cardiology, under I.D. No. 10489568 on the next day i.e.13.05.2015. Thereafter, Dr. Rajput came out of the procedure room and told Complainant "Congratulations! Your brother is fine he does not need a PaceMaker!" However after a couple of hours, Dr. Anoop K. Ganjoo told the Complainant that patient would need a pacemaker. The Complainant was shocked to hear this because no reason was provided for a sudden change in opinion by Opposite Party No.1. Furthermore, Opposite Party No.1 told Complainant that they would do ECHO test the following day and would decide on the next course of action. The ECHO test was undertaken on patient on 13.05.2015 and 15.05.2015 which also showed normal results. Despite the fact that the patients parameter were normal, Opposite Party No.1 doctors still insisted for implantation of ICD (Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator) device. The Opposite Party No.1 stated that the UCTR may or may not help the patient