STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Col. Mohan Singh (Retd.), House No.2039, Sector 64, Mohali-160062.

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]      Fortis Hospital (through its MD), Sector 62, Phase-VIII, Mohali – 160062.

2]      Dr. G.S. Kalra, Director, Cardiology C/o Fortis Hospital, Sector 62, Phase-VIII, Mohali – 160062.

3]      Managing Director Central Org. ECHS Maudle Lines, Delhi Cantt – 110010.

4]      ECHS Regional Centre Chandigarh, ECHS Wellness Centre C/o ECHS Polyclinic/Dispensary Chandigarh, Near Govt. High School, Sector 47A, Chandigarh, U.T.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 Argued By:-      

Sh. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Munish Kapila, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

Sh. Vaneet Mittal, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4.

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   This appeal has been filed by the complainant, namely, Col. Mohan Singh (Retd.) against order dated 11.01.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh [in short ‘District Commission’], whereby consumer complaint bearing No.631 of 2018 filed by him was dismissed by the Ld. District Commission.

2.     Briefly stated the facts as stated in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission are as under:-

“1.     The long and short of the allegations are that the complainant is a retired Army personnel. He is a beneficiary of the ECHS Scheme and became a member of ECHS as per memo dated 13.08.2003, by paying the prescribed amount of Rs.18,000/-. Copy of the said memo is annexed as Annexure C-1. The aim of scheme is to provide quality healthcare to Ex-servicemen pensioners and their dependents. As per complaint, the complainant felt breathlessness and weakness and therefore, went to ECHS Clinic, Sector 29, Chandigarh. The office of ECHS referred the complainant to Fortis Hospital, Mohali, for further investigation and treatment. Copy of the said reference which is annexed as Annexure    C-2. The Fortis Hospital is one of the empanelled hospitals under the ECHS Scheme. The Complainant was admitted in the OP Hospital and after relevant tests, the OP No.1 & 2 diagnosed that the complainant cardiac output is deficient and there is problem in cardiac impulse formation and the complainant is suffering from conduction disorders. They advised for implant of a permanent pacemaker to correct the problem in the complainant’s heart. The complainant had no reason or apprehension to doubt the senior doctor’s word to get operated under the supervision of OP No.2 in Fortis Hospital, where he was referred by OP No.4.

         As per complainant, on the next day i.e. on 02.11.2016, permanent pacemaker implantation was done and the complainant was advised to follow up in OPD. It was given the specification summary of the pacemaker which was implanted in him. The complainant was shocked that the pacemaker which was implanted in his body was not MRI compatible and was not the one which was agreed to be implanted, the copy of the brochure detailing the pacemaker and specification which is annexed as Annexure C-5. However, this claim has no sanctity because the pacemaker model mentioned in the bill is apparently different from this literature. Moreover, the doctors should have provided the original sticker of the model, which only could ensure that the said model has been implanted. The complainant had asked for an MRI compatible implant, which the OPs have conveniently ignored. As per complaint, the OP discharged the complainant and asked him to clear the outstanding dues of the treatment and the operation carried out on the complainant. The complainant was surprised, because being covered under the ECHS Scheme; it was entitled to free and cashless medical services