ORDER

1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section ­­­58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 17.03.2023, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1508/2017. In this, the Petitioner/ OP-1 appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 24.10.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Gurgaon (“District Forum”) in CC No.238 of 2013, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed.

2.      There was 54 days delay in filing the Revision Petition. For the reason stated in IA being No. 12839 of 2013, the same is condoned.

3.      For convenience, the parties in the present matter are denoted as per their positions in the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. Rishi Kumar Jain is the Complainant (Respondent No.1 herein). Paras Hospitals is OP-1 (Petitioner herein), Dr. Sanjeev Chaudhary MD (Medicine) is OP-2 (Respondent No.2 herein); Dr. M.K. Singh - Consultant Internal Medicine is OP-3 (Respondent No. 3 herein); St. Jude Medical, Cardiac Rhythm, Management Division Ltd. is OP-4 (Respondent No. 4 herein); and M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. is OP-5 (Respondent No. 5) in the matter.

4.      In brief, on 04.03.2013, the Complainant’s wife was admitted to Paras Hospital (OP-1) due to chest congestion, severe coughing, difficulty breathing, uneasiness, and swelling in both legs. Under the supervision of OP-2, she was diagnosed with acute left ventricular (LV) failure, dilated cardiomyopathy, non-critical coronary artery disease, LV dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 20%, hypothyroidism, and lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). Despite her severe infection and high TLC counts, which persisted until her death on 25.03.2013, OP-1 discharged her on 08.03.2013. OP-2 discharged her with incomplete treatment and advised implantation of a pacemaker device instead of providing necessary medical care. After discharge, the patient lost sensation of urine and was readmitted on 11.03.2013. An MRI test was attempted but could not be completed due to her weakness. She suffered cardiac arrest but was revived, placed on a ventilator, and received oxygen support in the CCU, yet continued to suffer from a severe infection affecting her right lung. Following OP-2's advice, consent was given for a bi-ventricular pacemaker implantation, but the device was not shown to the complainant. On 13.03.2013, a CRT-D device was implanted despite the patient's poor condition and infection, which was done by OP-2 with an ulterior motive. The patient was then transferred to OP-3 for further care. The Complainant’s request to transfer her to another hospital was denied. The pacemaker was unnecessary, provided no improvement in the patient's heart function and her condition worsened. On 25.03.2013, Madhur Jain (the deceased) passed away. The pacemaker was removed post-mortem and handed over to the Complainant after sterilization, but no bill for the device was provided. The doctors discussed implanting a CRT-D but instead used an ICD, which is different, ineffective, and possibly expired and infected. The Complainant asserts that the pacemaker caused the death due to medical negligence. He was wrongfully charged Rs. 35,500 as doctor fees, Rs.7,32,698/- for the pacemaker and Rs. 54,350 for installation. Consequently, he filed CC No. 238 of 2013 before the District Forum, seeking Rs.13,00,000 compensation towards cost of the pacemaker, installation, and doctor fees. Top of Form       

5.      In reply before the learned District Forum, OP-1 alleged that the Complainant was already compensated by the insurance company. She received the best possible treatment. All allegations against the treating doctors are false and frivolous. The patient was transferred to another doctor for further care, indicating no negligence on the part of OP-1. In reply, OP-2 contended that th