SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 39699

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ANIL NARAYAN – Appellant
Versus
BIMR HOSPITAL – Respondent
SC/23/A/16/327



Petitioner Advocates:SH.AMIT TIWARI ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 327/2016

Anil Narayan Saxena

S/o Late Kailash Narayan Saxena

R/o Jacchha Khane ke Samney

Laxmiganj, Lashkar

Gwalior (M.P.) ... Appellant

VERSUS.

1. B.I.M.R. Hospital (Birla Hospital)

Through Director

Surya Mandir Road

Residency, Murar

Gwalior (M.P.)

2. Dr. Ravi Shankar Dalmia

B.I.M.R. Hospital

Surya Mandir Road

Residency, Murar

Gwalior (M.P.). ... Respondents

BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI AMIT TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

NONE FOR RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R

( 31.12.2025 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

##PAGE2##

: 2 :

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter

referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated

8.2.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District

Commission’), in complaint case No. 187/2014, whereby the

District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant

observed chest pain on 17-18 June, 2013. He visited opposite

parties on 19.6.2013, upon which he was advised angiography.

On 19.6.2013 angiography was done through femoral artery.

After few hours the complainant observed pain and swelling in

his thigh, which developed into infected hematoma. The

complainant was discharged on 27.6.2013 but his condition

was not good. He was thereafter admitted in Medanta Hospital,

where Rs.4,03,305/- were spent in his treatment. The

complainant alleged that the opposite parties did not perform

angiography in proper manner, which led to development of

hematoma, due to which surgery of coronary bypass got

delayed. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the

opposite parties, he filed complaint before the District

Commission.

##PAGE3##

: 3 :

3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint and

submitted that the complainant was admitted in their hospital on

19.6.2013 with complaints of chest pain since last 10 years.

Angiography was advised in order to see the extent of

blockage. After angiography, it was observed that there was

blockage in all three arteries of complainant’s heart. He was,

therefore, advised (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft) CABG. The

complainant, however, did not give any confirmation, therefore,

CABG could not be done and the complainant was discharged

from their hospital. Therefore, prayer for dismissal of complaint

was made.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the

District Commission ignored the submissions of the

complainant and gave no findings with regard to development

of hematoma, on account of angiography performed in

negligent manner. Due to development of said hematoma

there was delay in performing CABG in Medanta Hospital,

since hematoma was to be treated first. Therefore, he prayed

that the impugned order be set aside and the complainant be

granted relief as has been sought in the complaint filed by him.

##PAGE4##

: 4 :

6. Undoubtedly angiography was performed by the

opposite parties and as per angiography report there was

blockage in all three arteries of his heart. After discussion he

was advised CABG. The complainant however, alleged that

angiography performed by the opposite parties was not done

in proper manner, due to which he developed hematoma in his

leg. Learned counsel for complainant specifically argued and

stated that the appeal has been filed on the ground that the

District Commission has completely ignored this fact that due to

improper procedure of angiography hematoma developed in

complainant’s leg. This issue was not at-all addressed by the

District Commission. Therefore, when the complainant was

admitted in Medanta Hospital, his hematoma was treated first

and thereafter CABG was performed. Due to treatment

hematoma the procedure of CABG was delayed.

7. We observe that hematoma is known complication of

angiography and development of hematoma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top