M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 1544/2012

1. Rakesh Fauzdar S/o Late J.D. Fauzdar

2. Siddhartha Jain Fauzdar S/o Rakesh Fauzdar

3. Nirvesh Fauzdar S/o Rakesh Fauzdar All R/o Pitra Bhakti Rasulia Hoshangabad (M.P.) ... Appellants VERSUS.

1. Bhopal Memorial Hospital &

Research Centre, Through the Chief Executive Officer

2. Dr. Skand Trivedi Cardiologist Bhopal Memorial Hospital &

Research Centre Both – Karond, Bypass Road Bhopal (M.P.). ... Respondents BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI DEEPESH JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS.

SHRI INDRAJEET SINGH RAJPUT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.

SHRI UZAIR TAJ, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2

O R D E R

( 08.01.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the appellants/complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainants’) is directed against the order dated 19.7.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 389/2005, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by them. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that wife of appellant No.1-Paras Rani (hereinafter referred to as ‘patient’) complained of chest pain on 9.6.2003 and consulted a family doctor in Hoshangabad. She was given treatment under the guidance of opposite party No.2-doctor. In order to assess her actual condition, she was suggested angiography, regarding which an ambulance to bring her to Bhopal was arranged by opposite party No.2-doctor. It is alleged that while shifting from ambulance, employees of the opposite party No.1-Hospital dropped the patient, which led to development of pulmonary edema. No investigation was done for 2 days and on 11.6.2003 angiography and angioplasty were performed by the opposite party No.2-doctor. It is submitted that two stents, amounting to Rs.1,95,000/- were implanted. It is alleged that on 16.6.2003, the complainant was administered with ‘A- negative’ blood group, whereas blood group of patient was ‘A- positive’. The expiry date of said blood, which was transfused was 18.6.2003. Due to said blood transfusion, condition of patient deteriorated. On 17.6.2003, the patient again reported chest pain, as angioplasty failed, but the Cath Lab of the opposite party No.1/Hospital was not functioning. On 23.6.2003, patient developed acute septicemia and she was kept on dialysis. On 25.6.2003, she was diagnosed with renal failure. The condition of patient was continuously deteriorating and she finally died on 27.6.2003. It is also alleged that the opposite parties showed resistance in providing medical documents as they realized that death of the patient was due to their negligence. Therefore, the complainants alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite parties before the District Commission submitted that condition of the patient was not good when she was brought from Hoshangabad to Bhopal. It is also submitted that the transfusion of blood was not responsible for the health condition of the patient. It is also submitted that the prescriptions, which were demanded by the complainants, were not provided to them earlier since bill amount was pending to be paid and after the bills were cleared, necessary papers were provided to them. It is further submitted that the patient was treated well in the hospital, and it was the only hospital available in the city, regarding treatment of the patient and since there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on its part, the complaint be dismissed. 4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the complainants argued that the patient was in stable condition, when she was referred from Hoshangabad to Bhopal. However, while shifting the patient, due to utter carelessne