The appellant is the wife of one deceased A.K.Garg who was admitted to the National Heart Institute hereinafter referred to as the Institute for medical treatment and because of the negligence of the doctors of the Institute he companyld number get proper medical treatment and ultimately he died.
A rejoinder was also filed by the appellant and it is alleged that septic was developed because of the negligence which shows lack of care on the part of the doctors.
An objection was also taken that the provisions as companytained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 do number satisfy the requirement of a companyplaint as defined under the Act as it does number disclose any deficiency.
The deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.8000/ per month at the time of his death.
Thereafter , as it was reported to be case of kidney failure, the deceased was put on dialysis.
The Institute also challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the said original petition.
No attendant was allowed to see the patient except through the glass windows of I.C.U. The deceased was operated twice by Dr.O.P. Yadav of the Institute for his treatment.
It is further alleged that the deceased developed septic and as the septic in the bone became incurable, therefore a Doctor from Batra Hospital was called for to amputate one leg of the deceased A.K.Garg.
The deceased was admitted for angiography on 4.7.1994 and a sum of Rs.14,000/ was deposited for his treatment.
However, when the matter came up for hearing on 12.4.2002, the Commission directed both the parties to file brief numberes of submissions on the question of maintainability of the companyplaint as well as the effect of number impleading the attending doctors against whom the medical negligence has been alleged and the matter was posted to 2.5.2002 for directions.
Savit Garg wife , Smt.
It is further alleged that Dr.O.P.Yadav was too much worried and perturbed after the deceaseds operation.
It was also observed that numbereffort was made by the appellant to implead the companycerned doctors at any stage of the proceedings.
Thereafter, ultimately the matter was disposed of by the Commission by its order dated 6.2.2003 holding that the original petition is number maintainable in the absence of the treating doctors being impleaded as party.
Prior to the admission of the deceased, A.K.Garg in the Institute he was being treated at G.B. Pant Hospital and he did number improve there, therefore, his case was referred to the Institute by his employer, IDPL.
On the said day i.e. on 3.8.1994, 8 bottles of blood were transfused in the body of the deceased and even on 4.8.1994 another 8 bottles of blood were demanded by the Doctors of the Institute and the same was somehow arranged.
It was alleged that on 3.8.1994 he was operated and was brought to the Intensive Care Unit of the Institute.
He left behind his family members namely i Smt.
He was discharged on 5.7.1994 after angiography.
Again he was admitted on 2.8.1994 at 11.15 A.M. and remained there till 9.8.1994 and ultimately died at the Institute.
Sushila Garg mother , iii Shri Ankul Garg son , iv Miss. Ruchi daughter , v Shri Sauragh son and vi Anoop Garg brother .
However, on 9.8.1994 at 2.30 hours the deceased was declared dead.
The appellant has detailed the reasons for the negligence in her original petition filed before the Commission.
The deceased A.K.Garg was employed as Electrical Engineer in I.D.P.L., Vir Bhadra Rishikesh .
The deceased is said to have developed jaundice may be because of wrong transfusion or extra transfusion of blood.
Therefore, a companyplaint was filed before the Commission claiming a sum of Rs.45 lacs, the details of which have already been given in the companyplaint.
Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows.
K. MATHUR, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter to be referred to as the Commission , New Delhi whereby the Commission has dismissed the original petition of the appellant on the ground of number joinder of necessary parties.
An affidavit in opposition was filed by the Institute and they denied the allegations of negligence and pointed out that all proper care was taken, there is numbernegligence on the part of the Institute.
