STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 18.11.2022 Reserved on : 05.09.2025 Date of Decision : 14.10.2025

1. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana through its Medical Supdt.

2. Dr. Baldev Singh Aulakh (Dr. B.S. Aulakh), Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana ….Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1&2 Versus

1. Kirpal Singh son of Dasonda Singh through his legal representatives:

(i) Kulwant Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh, (ii) Sukhdev Singh son of Kirpal Singh, (iii) Amarjeet Kaur daughter of Kirpal Singh (iv) Harender Singh Gill son of Kirpal Singh All residents of Ward No.9, 2.N.N., P.O.-4.N.N., Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

.…Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Savitri-I, First Floor, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager.

.…Respondent No.2/OP No.3 First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala, Camp Court at Ludhiana in RBT C.C. No. 508 of 2016.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, 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:-

For the appellants : Sh. Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. K.K. Goyal, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Sh. Nitin Gupta, Advocate VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1&2 i.e. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana and another, have filed the present Appeal through its Medical Superintendent to challenge the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala, Camp Court at Ludhiana (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant-Kirpal Singh had been Partly Allowed.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent No.1/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant on suffering with kidney problem had approached OP No.1 for treatment and OP No.2-Doctor, after check-up had advised for kidney transplantation. The Complainant was asked to arrange a person to donate his kidney to him. The Complainant’s real brother, namely, Richpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh (now mentioned as “Rachpal Singh”) had agreed to donate his kidney. After conducting all the necessary tests of said Rachpal Singh, OP No.2 had informed that everything was OK regarding transplantation of the kidney. OP No.2 had also issued Form-4 i.e. certification of medical fitness of living donor. All other formalities regarding kidney transplantation were completed by the OP-Hospital. On the asking of the Hospital, for kidney transplantation the Complainant was admitted in OP-Hospital on 21.04.2016 and had deposited Rs.2,65,000/- as transplantation fee.

4. Thereafter, the date of surgery was fixed as 26.04.2016 but on 25.04.2016, when the Anesthetist visited for giving injection to the Donor and the Complainant, on seeing the medical reports, CT Scan had told that operation could not be conducted under such circumstances as the stone was found there in both kidneys of donor. The Hospital had refunded the remaining amount of Rs.2,44,170/-, out of the deposited amount i.e. after deducting the treatment expenses so incurred. When the Doctor had refused to conduct the transplantation on 25.04.2016, the family member of the Complainant were shocked and confused as they had to arrange the new donor. The Complainant was discharged in the night of 25.04.2016 without conducting the transplantation surgery.

5. All the required tests of the donor had already been conducted