BRIJ MOHAN KHER vs N.H.BANKA

THE Complainant who is a Marine Engineer by profession has come up with this complaint seeking to recover a compensation of Rs. 55,90,000/- from the Opposite Parties herein namely,(1) Dr. N.H. Banka, a Consultant Gastroenterologist of Bombay and (2) The Medical Research Centre, Bombay Hospital Trust, Bombay alleging that because of negligence amounting to deficeincy in service on the part of Opposite Parties in diagnosing and treating the complainant while he was an inpatient in the Bombay Hospital under the treatment of Opposite Party No. 1 from 17th March, 1992 to 24th March, 1992, the complainant had suffered severe damage to his heart muscles resulting in impairment of the complainant''s earning capacity on account of his inability to resume his duties as an Engineer on the ship.

THE case of the complainant is that on or about 15th March,1992 he had suddenly developed severe pain in the region of his chest and abdomen and hence he was rushed to the Sion Hospital. The doctors of the Sion Hospital took his electrocardiogram immediately after his admission into the said Institute and his E.C.G. was absolutely normal. On 16th March, 1992, the complainant''s blood sample was sent to Hinduja Hospital by the doctors of the Sion Hospital for carrying out enzyme test and the result of the said investigation, was also normal. Thereafter the complainant states that he remined at the Sion Hospital for two days during which time his E.C.G. had been taken on three to four occasions and there were no signs of any heart disease. In spite of the treatment given to him by the doctors of Sion Hospital, the pain in the region between the chest and the abdomen persisted and hence the complainant got himself shifted from Sion Hospital to the Bombay Hospital (Opposite Party No. 2) for being treated by O.P. No. 1. The complaint goes on to state that on admission to the Bombay Hospital, the complainant was immediatley attended to by O.P. No. 1 and that at that time the complainant informed O.P. No. 1 that he had severe pain in the chest and on both his hands. O.P. No. 1 is said to have directed the concerned departments of the Bombay Hospital to have his E.C.G. and chest X-Ray taken and enzyme test- S.M.A.-12 Profile also got done. One of the charges levelled by the complainant against O.P. No. 1 is that though the reports containing the results of the aforesaid investigations were received on the evening of 17th March, 1992, O.P. No. 1 was not available for consultation and he studied the said reports only on 18th March, 1992 at 9.30 a.m. It is the complainant''s version that after perusing the investigation reports, O.P. No. 1 told the complainant that he was suffering from stone in the gallbladder and directed that endoscopy and sonography should be done on the complainant for the purpose of confirming the aforesaid diagnosis. The complainant states that the reports of both the said tests which were carried out did not indicate the presence of any stone in the gallbladder of the complainant but in spite thereof, O.P. No. 1 treated the complainant for stone in the gallbladder till the 24th March, 1992 on which date he was discharged from the Bombay Hospital. At the time of discharge, O.P. No. l prescribed certain medicines to be taken by the complainant and instructed him to take those medicines as advised and also to take a walk after meals.

THE complainant has further stated in the complaint that after taking the medicines prescribed by O.P. No. l, the complainant did not get relief from the pain in his chest and hence he went back O.P. No. 1 on 1-4-1992. O.P. No. 1 then examined the complainant and again prescribed certain medicines and also directed the complainant to continue with the dieting restrictions already prescribed for him. Thereafter, despite the continuance of the treatment prescribed by O.P. No. 1 the pain in the complainant''s chest persisted and hence the complainant is said to have consulted one Dr. D.F. Daruwala, a Cardiologist. Dr. Daruwala is said to have examined the reports of the cardiogram and Enzyme test done at the Bombay Hospital and also at the Sion Hospital and told the complainant that the complainant had suffered an infarction on 17th March, 1992 while he was an inpatient in the Bombay Hospital. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that on examining the cardiogram taken at the Bombay Hospital and comparing it with a cardiogram which Dr. Daruwala took on 9th June, 1992, the Cardiologist told the complainant that he "was shocked at the treatment given by the Opponent No. 1 as also the dietic restrictions prescribed by Opponent No. 1". It is also alleged by the complainant that he was informed by Dr. Daruwala that considering the condition of his heart as disclosed by the cardiogram and other tests done at the Bombay Hospital on 17th March, 1992, the complainant should have been immediately admitted to the Cardiac Care Unit in the hospital. Dr. Daruwala had an angiography test done on the complainant on 9th June, 1992 and the report thereof disclosed that the complainant had five blocks in his different arteries. The complainant has pro-ducted and annexed as Exhibit ''F'' a copy of the Coronary Angio Report dated 9th June,1992 given to the complainant by Dr. Daruwala. Subsequently the complainant underwent a coronary bypass surgery at the Jaslok Hospital on 26th June, 1992. The said operation was performed by a Cardiac Surgeon by name Dr. Suresh Joshi.

THE crux of the case put forward by the complainant is that if his electrocardiogram and report of SMA-12 profile done on 17th March, 1992 had been properly and correctly studies and evaluated by O.P. No. 1 it should have been clear to him that the complainant was having a myocardial infarction for which he should have been immediately shifted to Intensive Cardiac Unit of the hospital and it was because this was not done and his heart condition was neglected by O.P. No. 1 that his heart suffered damage to the extent of about 40 percent as disclosed by the Coronary Angio Report given by Dr. Daruwala. It is on this basis that the complainant has levelled the charge of gross negligence against Opposite Party No. 1 on the ground that he had wrongly diagnosed the complainant''s problem as that of a stone gallbladder and given him totally wrong treatment on the said premise while his actual complaint was one of myocardial infarction which was totally neglected and left untreated till the date of his discharge namely 24th March,1992. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by Dr. N.H. Banka - O.P. No. 1 wherein the allegations contained in the complaint have all been strongly refuted as totally untrue and untenable. According to O.P. No. 1 at about 6.30 a.m. on 17th March, 1992 he was contacted by one Mr. Sushil Makharia, a friend of the complainant who was also known to O.P. No. 1, with a request that the complainant who was suffering from abdominal disease and was being treated in Sion Hospital for two days without any relief, should be admitted to the Bombay Hospital under the care of O.P. No. 1 for treatment of serious abdominal undiagnosed condition. O.P. No. 1 has averred that in view of the grave condition of the complainant as described to him by Mr. Makharia he agreed to the request and contacted the Casualty Medical Officer of the Bombay Hospital and reserved a bed for the complainant. Thereafter the complainant was admitted to the Bombay Hospital (O.P. No. 2) at about 10.35 a.m. on 17th March, 1992. He was brought to the hospital in an ambulance and was accompanied by the complainant''s wife and Mr. Sushil Makharia. Immediately after admission the complainant was attended to by O.P. No. 1 along with his assistant Dr. Priya Anees Singhal. It is categoricary stated by O.P. No. 1 that the complainant had admitted himself without any record of the Sion Hospital in which he had been treated. O.P. No. 1 found on examination that the complainant was in a serious condition. A brief history of the complainant was taken down by Dr. Priya on the basis of the facts furnished artly by the complainant and partly by the complainant''s wife. The complainant complained of actute pain in the epigastrium (Upper Abdomen) which aggravated after taking meals and also stated that the pain was continuous and sharp. He clearly mentioned to O.P. No. 1 that the pain was not radiating to the back and it was not aggravated by anything else but was relieved on sitting. The complainant further stated while narrating his past history that he had a previous history of Ischemic heart disease (IHD) which was diagnosed in 1978 and had been treated for it for one year. Exhibit No. 1 annexed to the affidavit is a copy of the patient''s admission form dated 17th March, 1992 which contains the patient''s history taken down by Dr. Priya at the time of his admission. O.P. No. 1 has categorically asserted that neither at the time of his admission into the Bombay Hospital nor at the time of informing about his medical preoblems, the complainant had made any complaint of chest pain and it was specifically for the purpose of his treatment of undiagnosed abdominal condition that the complainant contacted O.P. No. 1 through Mr. Sushil Makharia. The complainant told Dr. Priya that as part of the treatment given to at the Sion Hospital, he had been administered I.V. fluids and numerous intramuscular injections on the arms and buttocks. The complainant had left Sion Hospital against medical advice and he never brought any reports from the said hospital when he got himself admitted into the Bombay Hospital. On examination of the complainant in the presence of Dr. Priya on 17th March, 1992 at about 11.00 a.m., O.P. No. 1 found that the complainant was tossing about on the bed and would bend his abdomen for getting relief from pain. It was also found that there was severe guarding in the upper abdomen of the complainant and the examination of the abdomen was causing him extreme pain. On the basis of the symptoms of his ailment as described by the complainant and the condition of the complainant as observed by O.P. No. 1 clinically, a provisional diagnosis of Acute Cholecystitis/Gall Stone pancreatitis was made by O.P. No. 1 and various blood investigations and electrocardiogram were ordered on emergency basis. O.P. No. 1 also immediately started treatment of the complainant consisting of I.V. fluids including Renitin, antibiotics and capsule Spasmoproxyvon. For relief of his severe abdomen pain he was also given intramuscular injection of Baralgan. After the reports of the pathological examination etc. were received, Dr. Priya informed O.P. No. 1 over the telephone at about 6.30 p.m. on 17th March, 1992 that the complainant was having enormously high W.B.C. count of 20,400 with Neutrophils of 81%. Exhibit 2 is a copy of the said blood report in respect of the sample of the complainant''s blood taken on 17th March, 1992. O.P. No. 1 was also informed br Dr. Priya that the complainant had abnormalities in the urine, SMA 12 profile and liver profile. Exhibits Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are copies of the said unrine report SMA 12 profile and liver profile of the complainant dated 17th March, 1992. On considering the reports of the complainant it was also found that the serum bilirubin was also elevated and so were the verious enzymes. O.P. No. 1 was of opinion that it was clearly indicated that the complainant suffered from serious upper abdominal problem probably Cholecystitis or pancreatitis. The ESR of the complainant was also found to be very high. The Electrocardiogram of the complainant taken on 17th March, 1992 also showed some abnormality but Dr. Priya informed O.P. No. 1 that while she was reading the Electrocardiogram of the complainant she was informed by the wife of the complainant that the said abnormalities in the Electrocardiogram of the complainant were due to his old complaint for which he was treated by Dr. K.K. Datey in the past. O.P. No. l was also informed by Dr. Priya that there was definite improvement in the condition of the complainant by 6.00 p.m. on 17th March, 1992, which showed that he was responding to the treatment that was being given to him and that there was marked reduction in his abdominal pain as the complainant was responding to the treatment. In view of this O.P. No.1 felt that there was no need to visit the complainant in the night and hence he instructed Dr. Priya to continue with the same treatment of the complainant.

THEREAFTER O.P. No. 1 visited the complainant on 18th March, 1992 at about 9.30 a.m. and himself examined all the reports. It was shown that the general condition of the complainant had improved by about 75%. He noticed some abnormality in Electrocardiogram of the complainant but was informed by the relatives of the complainant who were present at the time and also by the complainant that the said abnormalities were in existence for many years in all the earlier ECGs of the complainant. None of the previous Electrocardiograms of the complainant were available for comparison as the complainant had admitted himself without any prior record even of the treatment given to him at the Sion Hospital. The irregularities in the blood report and more especially the high CPK were discussed by O.P. No. 1 with Dr. Priya and they were of opinion that they must be due to the numerous intra-muscular injections given to the complainant at Sion Hospital. From the examination of the complainant and from the pathological reports and particularly, from the elevation and/ or increase of SGOT, SGTP and GGTP with very high Blood Cell (WBS) count, it was clearly indicated that the complainant was having severe upper abdominal infection as has been diagnosed earlier. By way of abundant caution, O.P. No. 1 showed that blood report and Electrocardiogram of the complainant Dr. P.L. Tiwari, a Senior Cardiologist of the Bombay Hospital, who happened to be on the same floor on the morning of 18th March,1992. Dr. Tiwari interpreted the Electrocardiogram and opined that the changes in the ECG were old in nature and confirmed the diagnosis that the complainant had severe Gallbladder and Pancreatic infection. He agreed with the treatment adopted by O.P. No. 1 for the complainant. Thereafter the complainant continued to improve clinically as well as by biochemically. He had high spikes of fever from time to time between 18th March, 1992 till 23rd March, 1992 and it was also found that the heart rate of the complainant would go up during the rise in temperature and would settle down again once the temperature became normal. This aforesaid condition and varying fever once again indicated a severe abdominal infection. When the blood tests were repeated on the complainant on 19th March, 1992 it was found that there was significant reduction in the WBC count from 20,400 to 14,400. But the Prothrombine had become grossly abnormal compared to what it was on 17th March,1992 and this indicated a severe impairment in the functioning of gallbladder and river. There was noticeable improvement in the urinary abnormalities which the complainant had at the time of his admission on 17th March, 1992. The Serum Billirubin of the complainant returned to normal although SGPT, SGOT, GGTP and LDH remained elevated. The aforesaid GGTP is a specific enzyme for the disease of Gall Bladder, Liver and Pancreas and high GGTP indicated disease of these organs.

THOUGH an ultrasound study of the Gall Bladder and pancreatic pathology was taken it did not show any abnormality but it is on second and third ultrasound examination that pre existing Gall Bladder and Pancreatic activities are revealed. According to O.P. No.l the ultrasound test is taken only by way of an additional measure for the purpose of verification of intra-abdomen disorder and although the ultrasound study of the complainant was normal, in view of the clinical and biochemical abnormalities the said ultrasound examination report could never be relied on as conclusively indicating that the complainant was not having any Gall Bladder and pancreatic pathology. Based on the clinical observation and the pathological reports, the same line of treatment as had been started earlier was countined by O.P. No. 1 and as a result of such treatment, the complainant fully recovered from his complaints of fever, pain etc. and he was discharged from the Bombay Hospital on 24th March, 1992 at 10.30 a.m. The complainant who was brought to the Bombay Hospital in an ambulance van went home smiling walking with his friend, after having been completely cured of his abdomen pain. The family doctor of the complainant Dr. Kotnis complemented O.P. No. 1 telephonically about the rapid recovery which the complainant had made under the care of O.P. No. 1 in the Bombay Hospital. O.P. No. 1 has reitrerated in the counter affidavit that at no time during his stay as inpatient in the Bombay Hospital from the stage of his admission on the morning of 17th March, 1992 uptil the moment of his discharge on 24th March, 1992 had the complainant complained of any chest pain nor was any heart ailment indicated from his clinical diagnosis. It has been pointed out by O.P. No. l that there is a significant statement in the Coronary Angio Report dated 9th June, 1992 of Dr. Daruwala produced as Exhibit-F and annexed to the complaint mentioned that the complainant had suffered sharp chest pain lasting for about half an hour "before one and half month''s back" which meant that the patient''s complaint of chest pain had occurred some time in the middle of April or end of April, 1992. This is very much subsequent to his discharge from the Bombay Hospital after having been treated by O.P. No. 1. It is also submitted as worthy of note that the ECG changes of CRSIII and AVF described in the Jaslok Hospital Coronary Angio Report dated 9.6.1992 are not seen in the ECG taken in the Bombay Hospital which means that these changes have developed subsquently somewhere in April,1992 indicating later development of heart trouble.

THE first Opposite Party has also submitted in the counter affidavit that it is evident from the fact that the Coronary Angio Report of 9th June,1992 discloses that the complainant had as many as five or six blockages in his arteries out of which one was 100%, another was 99% and the rest ranging between 80% and 90% he must have had a heart problem over a fairly long period of time in the course of which these blockages developed and they ultimately resulted in a myocardial infarction (MCT) sometime in the middle or end of April, 1992. Admittedly the complainant had been going for treatment to Dr. Datey who was a Heart Specialist from 1978 and had been undergoing his treatment since then. The complainant had approached the deponent (O.P. No. 1) through his friend Mr. Sushil Makharia only for treatment of undiagnosed abdominal pain and on investigation done at the Bombay Hospital at the instance of O.P. No. 1 it was found that the complainant was suffering from acute abdominal infection due to which his White Blood Cell count had risen to more than 20,000 which was alarmingly high. But for the timely and expert treatment given to the complainant by the deponent he would have developed septicemia with fatal consequences. If the treatment given by O.P. No. 1 to the complainant had not been given in time the infection and particularly, high WBC count in the blood of the complainant could have resulted in sever complications and death due to septicemia from which situation O.P. No. 1 saved him and enable him to go back home totally free from the infection and consequent abdomen pain and discomfort.

O .P. No. 1 has further submitted that the treatment given by him to the complainant could not have damaged the heart of the complainant and could not have resulted in blocking of arteries of the complainant. The blockage of arteries disclosed by the Coronary Angio report has come about as a result of a process of years of accumulation of atherosclearosis in the arteries and the same has no causal connection with the medication given to the complaint for his abdominal infection at the Bombay Hospital. O.P. No. 1 has submitted that the complainant while filing this complaint has suppressed material facts regarding his heart ailment which had been detected as early as in 1978 and with held all past records including the reports indicating his heart condition and the treatment given to him by Dr. Datey and other prior to 1992. It has also been averred by the O.P. No. 1 that prior to the filing of this present complaint petition, Mr. Hemant Khare, the brother of the complainant, visited the O.P. No. 1 at his clinic at Andheri on 6th October, 1992 and demanded money from him and abused him by threatening that dire consequences will follow to the O.P. No. 1 including physical harm to him and his wife and children. O.P. No. 1 has averred that at the time when the said incident took in his clinic Dr. Ramesh Mehta, a Senior Physician from Bombay and a patient who had accompanied him for consultation and one Mr. Raj Kumar Rizvi a singer from Bombay were also present in the clinic. O.P. No. 1 thereafter lodged a written complaint to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 7th October, 1992 a copy of which has been produced along with the counter affidavit and marked as Exhibit No. 13. It is alleged by the O.P. No. 1 that it is manifest from the said conduct of the complainant that his motive in filing the present complaint is only to make false, frivolous and vexatious allegations only by way of a speculative attempt to extract money from O.P. No. 1.

ON the basis of these submissions which have been eleborated in his counter affidavit O.P. No. 1 has prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with exemplary costs. Alongwith his counter affidavit O.P. No. 1 has produced affidavits from Dr. P.L. Tiwari, M.D., B.C.P. (U.K.) a Consultant Cardiologist attached to Bombay Hospital and also from Mr. Sushil Makharia, through whom the complainant had approached O.P. No. 1 for being taken under his treatment in the Bombay Hospital, from Dr. R.S. Kotnis, M.D., who is said to be the family doctor of the complainant and also from Dr. (Mrs.) Priya Anees Singhal, resident doctor attached to Bombay Hospital who had been assisting O.P. No. 1 treating the complainant.

A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the complainant wherein he has reiterated the case put forward by him in the main complaint petition and refuted most of the averments contained in the counter affidavit of O.P. No. 1 as incorrect and untenable. Along with the said rejoinder affidavit he has produced what is claimed to be the discharge certificate given from Sion Hospital and certain other certificates given to him in the year 1979 by Dr. A.F. Golwalla, Dr. K.K. Datey, Dr. K.N. Dastur, Dr. K.S. Savur as well as an Electrocardiogram taken at the Breach Candy Hospital on 25th May, 1979. Another document produced by the complainant along with his regoinder affidavit is a short affidavit of Dr. Daruwala wherein he has stated that in the Angio report of the complainant dated 9th June, 1992, there has been clerical error in stating that the complainant had sharp chest pain before "one and half months" and that it should be corrected so as to read as "complain of sharp chest pain lasting for half an hour before more than two and half months". This affidavit is dated July 7,1993. The complainant has also annexed to his rejoinder an affidavit from his wife Mrs. Judith Kher. Neither party has adduced any oral evidence in the case and the affidavits and the documents mentioned above constitute the only evidence produced before us in this case.

MR . N.D. Jayawant, Advocate appeared and argued the case on behalf of the complainant and the case of the Opposite Parties was argued by Mr. Parmil Shroff, Advocate. Both the Counsel have taken us elaborately through the affidavit evidence and the documents produced on either side. After having given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by Counsel on both sides and having carefully perused all the materials on records, we are unhesitatingly of the view that the complainant has totally failed to establish the charge of negligence levelled by him against the opposite parties.

THE main planks on which the complainant has rested his case are that on his admission in the Bombay Hospital when he was examined by O.P. No. 1 and Dr. Priya, he had complained to them of severe pain in the chest and both his hands and nextly, he has relied on the fact that the ECG taken on 17th March, 1992 had disclosed certain irregularities and that if the said ECG had been correctly read by O.P. No. 1 it should have been clear to him that the complainant suffered a Myocardial infraction on 17th March, 1992 and he ought to have immediately transferred him to the Intensive Cardiac Care Unit of the Bombay Hospital. It is on these premises that he has built up his entire case that he had suffered damage of heart muscles because of the negligence of O.P. No. 1 in not correctly reading and interpreting his ECG and taking immediate necessary action to transfer him to Intensive Cardiac Care Unit where he would have been administered life saving drugs which could have averted the damage of his heart muscles. The aforesaid case of the complainant is clearly falsified by the contemporaneous record prepared the Bombay Hospital immediately after the admission of the complainant wherein the nature of his complaint and his past history as narrated by the complainant and his wife have been recorded. Exhibit No. 1 attached to the counter affidavit of O.P. No. 1 contains the said ''history sheet''. Therein it is clearly stated that the patient had complained acute pain in the Epigastrium which was continuous and sharp radiating to both elbows. Under the heading "past history" it is noted therein that in 1978 the patient was diagnosed to have IHD "ISCHEMIC Heart Disease" and treated for one year and subsequently he was found to have hiatus hernia on Barium meal. Under the heading "family history" it is noted that the patient''s father had ISD stroke, that his brother who is 38 years had undergone coronary bypass and his sister was hypertensive. It is significant that there is no mention at all in the said history sheet that the patient had complained of any pain in the chest either at the time of his admission or any time thereafter before he was discharged therefrom on 24th March, 1992. In addition, to the averment contained in the affidavit of O.P. No. 1 that the complainant had not complained only of abdominal pain and had not mentioned about his having any pain in the chest at any time during his stay in the hospital from 17th March to 24th March,1992. We have the sworn affidavit of Mr. Makharia wherein it is stated that he had accompanied the complainant and his wife and got him admitted into the Bombay Hospital on 17th March,1992 and it was he who had signed the admission card of the complainant and even paid the hospital charges at the time of admission. In the said affidavit Mr. Makharia has stated that he had known the complainant for more than 30 years, and since the complainant had suffered from abdominal pain which did not come under control between 15th March and 17th March despite his having been treated at the Sion-Hospital he (deponent) contacted the first O.P. at about 6.30 a.m. telephonically on 17th March, 1992 and requested him to agree to have the complainant treated under his care in the Bombay Hospital. Since O.P. No. 1 has agreed to attend the complainant urgently in spite of his being otherwise busy the deponent and the wife of the complainant accompained the complainant in an ambulance from Sion Hospital to Bombay Hospital and he even signed the admission card and also paid charges to the hospital. He has further sworn that it was in his presence that Dr. Priya took down the previous history given by complainant''s wife. The complainant had not carried with him to the Bombay Hospital any record whatever of the treatment given to him in Sion Hospital or his previous medical record. The deponent has gone on to state that in his presence the complainant''s wife informed Dr. Priya that the complainant had a history of heart ailment (IHD) in or about 1978 and that he had been treated for the said condition by Dr. K.K. Datey. She also told Dr. Priya that the complainant had previous history of Hiatus Hernia and all these facts were recorded by Dr. Priya in his presence as per the information supplied by the complainant''s wife. It has been further sworn to by this witness that neither while going to the Sion Hospital nor after shifting from the Sion Hospital to Bombay Hospital on 17th March, 1992 and till the morning on 24th March, 1992 when the complainant was discharged from the Bombay Hospital, the complainant had complained at any time chest pain or any pain in the heart. He has also stated that he was aware that the complainant had not continuously worked as Marine Engineer after his heart sickness in 1978-79 and that he had switched on to owning Race horses on his name or in the name of his family members and is a frequent goer to the Race course on regular basis as his means of earning. It is also sworn by the deponent, that the complainant had suffered losses at the Racecourse and hence he had sold some of his horses recently, and he had been informed by the complainant that he has been trying to migrate to USA with the help of his sister who is a permanent resident there. Another significant statement made by this deponent in his affidavit is that the wife of the complainant in his presence had informed O.P. No. 1 that there were some abnormalities in all the cardiograms of the complainant taken after 1978 when the complainant had suffered heart ailment and hence the fact that there was abnormality in the cardiogram taken on 17th March,1992 should not cause concern.

O .P. No. 1 has also produced along with his counter affidavit an affidavit of Dr. R.S. Kotnis, M.D. who has sworn that he is a family doctor of the complainant for the last more than five years. The deponent has proceeded to state that in the second week of March, 1992 the complainant developed severe pain in his abdomen and since the pain aggravated and the condition of the complainant deteriorated he got himself admitted at the Sion Hospital/The deponent visited the Sion Hospital and found that the condition of the complainant was nowhere on the road to recovery and hence he was anxious that the complainant should receive immediate better medical care and attention. He discussed this aspect with the complainant''s wife who then mentioned to the deponent the name of O.P. No. 1 who was known to a family friend of the complainant Mr. Sushil Makharia. Thereupon the deponent confirmed that O.P. No. 1 would be an excellent choice for dealing with abdominal problems of the complainant and that O.P. No. 1 may be contacted urgently. Thereafter the deponent along with Mr. Sushil Makharia telephoned the Opposite Party No. 1 at 6.30 a.m on 17th March, 1992 and explained to O.P. No. 1 about the grave condition of the patient. Thereafter the complainant was transferred to Bombay Hospital for treatment under the care of O.P. No. 1. The complainant had not complained of any chest pain or heart ailment to him either around 15th March,1992 or immediately after 24th March,1992. The deponent has sworn that the complainant had suffered from heart problem in 1978 and for that he had been treated by late Dr. K.K. Datey and he had been advised to avoid any strenuous physical activity. It has been further sworn to by the deponent that the complainant has not been admitted to Sion Hospital with any complaint of chest pain; on the other hand he had serious abdominal catastrophe in March,1992 for which a successful care and cure was provided in Bombay Hospital by O.P. No. 1.

WE have also the affidavit of Dr. Priya Anees Singhal who had assisted the Opposite Party No. 1 in the treatment of the complainant at the Bombay Hospital. She has categorically sworn that when the complainant was admitted to O.P. No. 2 (Bombay Hospital), she examined the complainant and she also met Mrs. Judith Kher (complainant''s wife) and took down in her own handwriting the previous history of the complainant which was recorded in the prescribed form of the hospital at the time of admission of the patient on 17th March, 1992 and its copy is Exhibit No. 1. The patient had been previously admitted to Sion Hospital and he was subsequently shifted to Bombay Hospital for the same complaint without getting any relief at Sion Hospital. The complainant had not brought with him and did not show to her any old records from Sion Hospital. The complainant and his relatives informed her that in or about 1978, the complainant had heart trouble and was treated for IHD for one year. She was also informed that Dr. K.K. Datey was at that time treating the complainant. O.P. No. 1 conducted a detailed examination of the complainant in her presence and he ordered that the blood reports, urine reports, liver profile, E.C.G., Prothrombine time etc. of the complainant should be immediately arranged to be taken on emergency basis. When the reports were received in the evening on 1,7th March, 1992 it was found that the WBC count of the patient was alarmingly high namely, 20,400 and there were irregularities also in the liver profile, Prothrombine time etc. There was some irregularity in the patient''s ECG but the deponent was informed by the complainant''s wife that such irregularities were present in all the earlier ECGs of the complainant taken after the IHD episode of 1978. These matters were discussed by the deponent with O.P. No. 1 over the telephone and he was also told by the deponent that the patient was responding well to the treatment which had been started around 11.50 a.m. It was decided to continue the line of treatment on the basis that the complainant was suffering from abdominal/liver/gall bladder or pancreatic infection and the said infection was already showing signs of yielding to the treatment as was evident from the general improvement in the clinical condition of the patient. Since the details of the case had already been fully discussed with O.P. No. l and the patient''s condition was showing distinct signs of improvement, it was not necessary for O.P. No. l to visit the hospital at night on 17th March,1992 as the deponent was constantly monitoring the progress registered by the complainant from time to time. Dr. Priya has categorically asserted that the complainant never complained of any chest pain or any pain above the abdominal region. He was discharged on the 24th March, 1992 after he fully recovered from his severe abdominal pain. The complainant was very happy when he was discharged and thanked the deponent and O.P. No. 1 for the care taken and for the treatment given to him. Whereas he had been brought to the Bombay Hospital in an ambulance from Sion Hospital on 17th March, 1992, he left Bombay Hospital walking with his relatives. O.P. No. 1 has also produced along with his counter-affidavit and affidavit of Dr. Pyarelal Tiwari, M.D., M.R.C.P. (U.K.), Consulting Cardiologist attached to Bombay Hospital. Dr. Tiwari has sworn that O.P. No. 1 contacted him on 18th March, 1992 on the 11th floor of the Bombay Hospital where he was also visiting patients as a Consultant Cardiologist attached to the said hospital and he was shown an electrocardiogram of the complainant. O.P. No. 1 informed the deponent that the complainant was admitted under his care for several gall bladder or pancreatic infection and that he had given past history of IHD in 1978 for which he was treated for one year. The deponent states that he read the electro-cardiogram taken at the Bombay Hospital on 17th March, 1992 and opined that it reveals old myocardial injury in the an-tero-septal region of the heart and that those changes reflected only the heart disease which had occurred in the past. The deponent has sworn in his affidavit as follows:" "I further confirm that the Electro Cardiogram taken at the Opponent No. 2 hospital on 17th March, 1992 and examined on 18th March, 1992 did not and does not show and heart ailment developed on 17th March, 1992. I maintain that in my opinion any person who has history of heart ailment for one year or more is bound to have the Electro-Cardiogram changes as found on 17th March,1992 that of the complainant and the copy of which is annexed as Exhibit "C" (Collectively) and usually these changes persist life long. I confirm that looking at the Blood Report and Liver Profile and particularly the very high W.B.C. count of 20,400 I concurred with the Opponent No. 1 that the situation of the complainant was alarming and if the complaint was not treated for the severe abdominal pain originating from the liver/ Gall Bladder/Pancreatic infection then there was possibility of severe complications or death of the complainant due to septicemia."

............... I was also told that within one day of admission of the complainant, the complainant was responding to the treatment and it was clear sign of complainant being correctly treated for his Liver/Gall Bladder/Pancreatic infection in the upper abdominal region. I say that it is customary for colleagues at the hospital to consult each other where found necessary. I maintain that the Electro-Cardiogram of the complainant dated 17th March, 1992 shows old abnormalities and does not indicate of any mild or massive heart attack to the complainant on 17th March, 1992 at the hospital."

THE deponent has refered to the Coronary Angio Report dated 9.6.1992 by Dr. Daruwala and stated that on reading the said report he had no doubt that the complainant may have received heart attack due to blockages in his coronary artery as correctly recorded in the said coronary report in or about second half of April, 1992 which is more than 20 days after the complainant was discharged from the Bombay Hospital. The deponent has pointed out that the changes of QRS III, AVF which are present in the ECG report of 17th March, 1992 done at the Bombay Hospital and thus the said complainant must have developed somewhere in April, 1992. The deponent has gone on to state his expert opinion as practicing consulting Cardiologist that by reason of the treatment given by O.P. No. 1 to the complainant no heart ailment could have been caused or aggravated nor could there be any aggravation of blockages in the artery or damage to the heart of the complainant as alleged or suggested by the complainant.

WE shall first deal with the case of the complainant that he had availed of the services of O.P. No. l for the treatment of a complaint of chest pain. The complainant is not an ingnorant and illiterate person but is a qualified Marine Engineer who had been consulting well-known Cardiologists of Bombay such as Dr. K.K. Datey, Dr. A.F. Golwalla etc. admittedly, from the year 1978 onwards as is clear from the documents produced by him along with his rejoinder affidavit. O.P. No. 1 is a Consulting Gastroenterologist and it is impossible to believe that the complainant would have approached a Gastroenterologist for treatment of chest pain. Admittedly it was through the instrumentality of his friend Mr. Sushil Makhaira that the complainant contacted O.P. No. 1 and got him to agree to take him as a patient under his care in the Bombay Hospital. Though the complainant has conveniently stated in his affidavit that Mr. Sushil Makharia is not a close friend of his and was known to him only for a very short time, we are not prepared to believe this version as true in view of the admitted facts that it was Mr. Sushil Makharia who had accompanied the complainant and his wife to the Bombay Hospital, got the complainant admitted there, signed the admission card on behalf of the complainant and even paid the requisite deposit amount in the hospital for and on behalf of the complainant. We are of opinion it is safe to rely on the disinterested version given by Shri Makharia in his affidavit dated 19th June, 1992 wherein he has categorically sworn that the complainant had suffered from acute abdominal pain and it was for the said complaint that he had been treated by O.P. No. 1. It has further been stated on oath by Shri Sushil Makharia in his affidavit that at no time between 17th March, 1992 when the complainant was admitted into the Bombay Hospital and the morning of 24th March, 1992 when he was discharged therefrom the complainant had complained of any chest pain or any pain in the heart. These averments are corrborated by the statement contained in the affidavits sworn to and filed by O.P. No. 1 and Dr. Priya which we see no reason to disbelieve. The contemporaneous records maintained in the Bombay Hospital do not contain any indication that the complaint had ever complained of any pain in the chest at any time during the period of his slay as inpatient there. We have no hesitation to reject the story of chest pain being the ailment for which he got admitted in the Bombay Hospital under the care of O.P. No. 1 as totally false. Along with the complaint petition, the complainant had produced Exhibit ''B'' the discharge certificate issued by the Sion Hospital. In Exhibit ''B'' it is noted that the patient''s ailment was hiatus hernia and abdominal pain "for investigation" and what was advised was upper G.I. scopy (endoscopy). But along with the rejoinder affidavit filed by the complainant in reply to the counter affidavit of the respondents he has produced another sheet purporting to be a part of the discharge certificate issued by the Sion Hospital wherein "chest pain and perspiration" have been noted as the complaint of the patient. There is no explanation at all as to why this document was not produced along with complaint petition when Exhibit ''B'' alone was produced as the discharge certificate issued by the Sion Hospital. We do not consider it safe to place any reliance on the document produced along with rejoinder as Exhibit ''A''. After our careful study and scrutiny of all the evidence on record we have no hesitation to reject the self serving version put forward by the complainant in his affidavit that he had complained of chest pain and it was for the said complaint that he had admitted for treatment into the Bombay Hospital under the care of O.P. No. 1.

WE shall now proceed to consider whether the further case put forward by the complainant that he did not have any previous history of heart ailment prior to his admission in the Bombay Hospitalon 17th March,1992 can be accepted as true. From the documents produced by the complainant himself, it is seen that he had been visiting cardiologists from the year 1979 and having E.C.Gs. periodically taken. The patient''s previous history recorded in the Bombay Hospital immedialely after his admission into the said institution on 17th March, 1992 contains a clear entry that the complainant had been diagnosed in 1978 to have Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) and had been treated for one year for the same. We see no reason not to accept as true the sworn statements of Mr. Sushil Makharia (who was present at the time of recording of the said "history of the patient") and Dr. Priya that the concerned entry was made on the basis of information furnished partly by the complainant''s wife and partly by the complainant himself. We see also no reason to doubt the truth of the statement of Dr. R.S. Kotnis, whose affidavit has been produced on the side of O.P. No. 1, that he has been a family doctor of the complainant and his family for the last more than 5 years and that the complainant had suffered from heart problem in 1978 for which he was treated by late Dr. K.K. Datey after which the complainant had been advised to avoid strenuous physical activity. Dr. Kotnis has also confirmed in his affidavit that the complainant had been admitted into the Bombay Hospital for treatment of undiagnosed abdominal pain. In the light of all this evidence, we are unable to accept as true the version put forward by the complainant that he did not have any past history of Ischemic Heart (IHD) prior to his admission into the Bombay Hospital.

THE next plea put forward by the complainant is that in view of the high valued of CPK, LDH and SGOT in the enzyme test reports of the complainant dated 17th March, 1992, the opposite party No. 1 was clearly negligent in not immediately shifting the complainant to the Intensive Cardiac Care Unit of the Hospital since these high values were indicative of Myocardial Infarction. Reliance was placed by the complainant''s Counsel on certain passages in the treatise entitled "THE HEART" (Fifth Edition) by J. Willis Hurst in support of the aforesaid contention. It is stated in the said book that "the major use of serum enzyme measurements has been to answer the question of whether myocardial infarction is present or absent. The enzymes that have been employed include serum glutamic oxaloacetic tranaminase (SGOT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and creatime kinase (CK or CPK)..............SGOT is quite sensitive to infarction but is also elevated in some patients with pulmonary embolism, myocarditis, pericarditis, hepatic congestion, or skeletal muscle disease, and in some patients using oral contraceptives. Elevated SGOT levels are also observed after surgery and cardioversion. LDH is also a sensitive indicator of infarction and is more specific than SGOT, although LDH elevations are found in megaloblastic anemia, liver disease, pulmonary infarction, myxedema, and hemolysis. Total CK elevations are very sensitive for infarction but are seen with skeletal muscle, brain, or gastrointestinal damage. While the above passage shows that elevated level of the aforesaid enzymes can be suggestive of myocardial problem, our attention has also been drawn on behalf of O.P. No. 1 to certain passages in leading International Medical Journals and text books such as new England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of American Medical Association wherein it is seen clearly stated that SMA-12 profile (enzyme test) can reflect high level of CPK after intra-muscular injections of various drugs. In the article in New England Journal of Medicine ,Vol. 287, No.6 pages 309 and 310 it is seen stated that twenty-fold elevations in CPK level can occur after intra-muscular injection of various drugs. "One cause of CPK elevation that is often not appreciated is the Intra-muscular (TM) injection of various drugs".

BEFORE the sensitivity for measuring CPK activity was increased only "irritating" drugs such as procaine penicillin G. were reported to cause CPK elevations. It is now known that single injections of numerous drugs, irritating or not, can produce CPK elevations of usually two to six times normal. Twenty-fold elevations have been reported with multiple injections. This is not so surprising, when one considers that the ratio of CPK activity in skeletal muscle cardiac muscle is about 10:1. The drug most commonly implicated include narcotic analogizes, barbiturates, phenothiazines, and antibiotics, many of which are used in patients with MT."

"THIS rise in CPK can be seen in six to 12 hours after injection and usually lasts for two to three days after the last injection. The highest activities have been observed in patients receiving multiple injections, including the effects may be additive. In an article by Michael A. Navins in Journal of Amercian Medical Association Vol. 224, No.10, page 1382 to pages 1387 it is mentioned at page 1385 that "Intra-Muscular injections are an important cause of serum CPK elevation. Since CPK activity in skeletal muscle is so high, it is not surprising that serum levels might be significantly increased as a result of local muscle trauma. Of those of our patients with unanticipated CPK elevations, most had received recent intra-muscular injections."

IT would be seen from the above passages that CPK elevations etc. in the SMA-12 profile cannot in any way be conclusively taken as indicating the onset of myocardial complications. O.P. No. 1 has sworn in his affidavit that when he found the said irregularities in SMA-12 profile report, he discussed the matter with Dr. Priya and concluded that the said abnormality must be due to the large number of intra muscular injections of analgesics etc. which the patient had been given at the Sion Hospital. Further the enzyme test report is not to be considered in isolation but has to be taken into account along with the reports containing the result of the liver profile test, prothrombine activity test, blood examination result etc. collectively. The blood examination report of the complainant dated 17th March,1992 disclosed that the WBC count was as high as 20,400 with Neutrophils of 81% which disclosed a very highly alarming situation. The urine report of the complainant as well as his liver profile showed serious abnormalities, the complainant''s serum bilirubin being also elevated. Taking all these along with the fact that the ESR of the patient was also very high, O.P. No. 1 arrived at the conclusion that the complainant had severe upper abdominal infection. The irregularities noticed in the complainant''s E.C.G. was also duly taken note of but as O.P. No. 1 and Dr. Priya were both informed by the complainant''s wife that there were similar irregularities in the earlier ECGs of the complainant taken after the episode of Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) from which he suffered in 1978, O.P. No. 1 felt that no importance need be attached to the said factor and that what was required was to save the life of the patient who was in a very serious condition with severe infection which might develop into septicemia and ultimately lead to his death. However, by way of abundant caution, O.P. No. 1 showed the ECG as well as the blood report and the enzyme reports etc. of the patient to Dr. P.L. Tiwari, Consulting Cardiologist attached to the Bombay Hospital who happened to be on the same building of the Hospital on the morning of 18th March, 1992 and Dr. Tiwari after studying the ECG and reports of pathological test, enzyme and liver profile tests expressed the view that the ECG of the complainant dated 17th March, 1992 showed only old abnormalities and that what was required was that the complainant should be treated for the severe abdominal pain originating from the liver/Gall Bladder/Pancreatic infection since there was a possibility of severe complications and even the death of the patient due to septicemia. O.P. No. 1 has sworn in his affidavit that he had earlier discussed with Dr. Priya the various test reports including the elevated level of CPK and it was concluded that the said abnormality in the CPK must have due to the numerous intramuscular injections of analgesics that the patient had been administered at the Sion Hospital prior to his discharge therefrom. This conclusion, in our opinion was perfectly reasonable in the light of the views recorded by established Medical Authors in the passages extracted above.

THE liver profile test of the complainant showed serious abnormalities and this could also be one of the factors leading to elevation of CPK. The complainant had also high fever from 18th March, 1992 till 23rd March, 1992. The Prothrombine time test report dated 19-3-1992 was highly abnormal when compared to the readings taken shortly after his admission in the Bombay Hospital on 17th March, 1992. This indicated a severe impairment in the functioning of the complainant''s liver and Gall bladder. The serum bilirubin was also abnormally high as seen in the blood examination report dated 17th March, 1992. This was also indicative of the impairment of the functioning of the liver. We have no hesitation to believe the statements contained in the sworn affidavti of Dr. Tiwari, who is a highly qualified Consulting Cardiologist attached to the Bombay Hospital that O.P. No. 1 had consulted him on the morning of the 18th March,1992 and had shown him the ECG report, blood report and other investigation reports of the complainant and discussed the case fully with him and that he (Dr. Tiwari) had given the opinion that it was a case of liver/gall bladder/pancreatic obstructions in the upper abdomen region and the ECG report of 18th March, 1992 showed only old abnormalities and did not indicate the occurrence of any Myocardial problem as on 17th March, 1992. Thus it would be seen that O.P. No. 1 had acted with utmost care and circumspection in the matter of treating the complainant and it was only due to his very prompt and correct diagnosis of the complainant''s ailment that he was completely cured from the abdominal infection for which he had been admitted in the Hospital and was enabled to go home walking and smiling after his discharge from the Bombay Hospital on 24th March, 1992. We find no substance of the truth or merit in the case put forward by the complainant that he suffered a Myocardial infarction at the Bombay Hospital on 17th March, 1992 and it was because of the said condition not having been promptly diagnosed and hence neglected by O.P. No. 1 by not shifting him to Intensive Cardiac Care Unit for administration of life saving drugs, that he had suffered serious damage to his heart muscles. In support of this plea, the complainant had produced along with the complaint petition as Exhibit ''F'' a Coronary Angiogram report dated 9-6-1992 of Dr. D.F. Daruwalla. In that report it is mentioned that the patient had a complaint of "sharp chest pain lasting for ½ hour before 1½ months associated with radiation to both arms". This statement was replied on by the petitioner as indicating that he had suffered chest pain leading to Myocardial Infarction that he was in-patient in the Bombay Hospital from 17th March to 24th March, 1992. In the counter affidavit filed by O.P. No. 1 pertinently pointed out that by going by the statement in the report Exhibit ''F'' it was clear that the incident of chest pain had occurred one and half months prior to 9-6-1992 which would be somewhere in the third or last week of April, 1992, long after the complainant had been discharged from the Bombay Hospital, on 24-3-1992. After having been served with the counter affidavit, the complainant apparently realised that Exhibit ''F'' s it then stood would not be of any assistance to him but was counter productive and hence he appears to have approached Dr. Daruwalla and obtained an affidavit from him dated 7-7-1993 which has been filed along with the complainant''s rejoinder affidavit. In the said affidavit Dr. Daruwalla has stated that in the Angio Report of Brij Mohan Kher, dated 9th June,1992 there has been a clerical error made under the title History and Physical Examination and that "complaint of sharp chest pain lasting for ½ hour before one and half months associated with radiation to both arms" should read as "complaint of sharp chest pain lasting for half hour before more than two and half months". The addition of the words "more than" immediately before two and half months must have been done obviously on the insistence of the complaint in order to bring the episode of chest pain well within the period when he was an in-patient in the Bombay Hospital. Another point to be noted is that the reasons mentioned by Dr. Daruwalla for stating that there was a clerical error in his original report is that "since this report is with reference to the G.I. problem at Sion Hospital and subsequent E.C.G. of Bombay Hospital dated 17-3-1992 which shows infarction which is clearly mentioned in the said Angio report". We fail to understand how the Gastro Intestinal problem at Sion Hospital had any relevance whatever for reaching the inference that the original report contained any clerical error. The subsequent ECG report of Bombay Hospital dated 17-3-1992 as already discussed, showed only the signs of damage of a previous episode of infarction and did not indicate any Myocardial infarction as having taken place on 17-3-1992 as has been sworn to by Dr. P.L. Tiwari. The coronary angio report prepared by Dr. Daruwalla on 9-6-1992 only contained the statement that "was found on ECG to have infarcted" and the reference was obviously to the ECG taken at his instance immediately prior to the angiography. Significantly, the very same report mentioned that the patient had gone to Sion Hospital with some G.I. problem and later he worked up in Bombay Hospital (created ?) and was found to have hiatus hernia reflex eso-phagitis.

THESE statements do not in any way support the case of the complainant that he had gone to the Sion Hospital and Bombay Hospital with the complaint of chest pain and that he had suffered a Myocardial infarction on 17-3-1992 at the Bombay Hospital.

WE do not wish to comment upon the affidavit filed by Dr. Daruwalla except to state that we are not prepared to make any reliance upon the statement contained therein that the history of the patient noted by him in the coronary angio report dated 9.6.1992 was vitiated by a clerical mistake. We accept exhibit T'' as containing a correct record of the history of ailment of the complainant as narrated by him to Dr. Daruwalla on 9.6.1992. It is inconceivable to our mind how an eminent Consultant Cardiologist in the position of Dr. Daruwalla who must be seeing many different patients each day could so vividly remember after an interval of more than one year the minute details as to the history of illness narrated to him by the complainant in June, 1992. We would merely state that we do not accept the version that the Statements contained in Exhibit ''F'' were vitiated by any "clerical mistake". It then follows that the complainant who was already having an old history of Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) had suffered a Myocardial Infarction sometime towards the end of April, 1992 and had thereafter successfully undergone a coronary by-pass surgery at the Jaslok Hospital. The treatment given to him at the Bombay Hospital by O.P. No. 1 had not in any manner contributed to the occurrence of the Myocardial infarction which he suffered towards the end of April, 1992 and the allegations to the contrary made in the complaint petition and the rejoinder are totally baseless and unfounded. On a careful consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, we are firmly of opinion that the complainant who had been admitted into the Bombay Hospital on 17.3.1992 in a very serious condition with severe upper abdominal infection had been given prompt and expert treatment by O.P. No. 1 and it was only as a result of very good care and expert treatment given by O.P. No. 1 that the infection was quickly brought under control and the complainant was saved from what might otherwise have lead to his death on account or Septicemia. No negligence, lack of reasonable skill, care and caution or deficiency in service of any kind had been established by the complainant as against O.P. No. 1 or against the Bombay Hospital (O.P. No. 2).

IT is in evidence that the complainant who had practically given up his occupation as Marine Engineer on account of his having been advised by doctors not to take up any work involving physical strain had taken to gambling at the Race Course and had lost somewhat heavily in that venture. The averments to this effect contained in the affidavit filed by Mr. Sushil Makharia have not been controverted by the complainant in his rejoinder. Reference must also be made to the fact that O.P. No. 1 has sworn that the complainant''s brother had gone to his clinic one day shortly before the date of the filing of the present complaint and demanded a huge sum of money after abusing O.P. No. 1 and calling him a murderer and left after threatening that the O.P. No. 1 and his family members would be facing serious consequences if his demand for money was not complied with. This allegation has been specifically made in the counter-affidavit of O.P. No. 1, it is significant that there is no denial of the same in the rejoinder filed by the complainant.

IT appears to us that by filing this complaint seeking to recover a compensation of Rs. 55,90,000/- from the opposite parties, the motive of the complainant is only to indulge in speculative litigation taking undue advantage of the fact that no court fee is payable for institution of a case under the Consumer Protection Act. We hold that the complainant has totally failed to make out any case against the opposite parties and dismiss this petition as frivolous and vexatious one. It is relevant in the contest of our aforesaid findings to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court of India in paragraph 26 of the judgment in Morgan Stanely Mutual Fund v. Kartik Dass and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 4584 and 4587 of 1994 dated May 20,1994 reported in II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC) wherein it has been observed "there is an increasing tendency on the part of litigants to indulge in speculative and vexatious litigation and adventurism which the fora seem readily to oblige. We think such a tendency should be curbed." In our opinion the present case is a typical instance of such indulgence in speculative litigation and adventurism by the complainant, a tendency which must be put down with a heavy hand. Having regard to the fact that the valuation of this complaint petition is Rs. 55,90,000/-, which is the amount of compensation sought to be recovered from the respondents, we consider that it would be reasonable, in the circumstances of this case, to direct that the complainant shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of costs to O.P. No. 1 and a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to O.P. No. 2. We order accordingly. The complaint is dismissed with the said directions regarding payment of costs. Mr. Y. Krishan, Member "I agree. 2. It is unbelievable that the complainant suffered a myocardial infarction on the 17th March, 1992 and got well by treatment for acute Cholecystitis/Gall Stone/pancreatitis and without any treatment for the myocardial infarction he claimed to have suffered. It is also unacceptable that if he had suffered from myocardial infarction on the 17th March, 1992 and was discharged on the 24th March, 1992, he did not require complete rest thereafter. As the order recorded by the Hon''ble President observes, he was brought to the hospital on the 17th March, 1992 in an ambulance but went home on the 24th March, 1992 walking. This would not have been possible had are suffered from myocardial infarction in this period. 3. It is unbelievable that the complainant had suffered five or six blockages in his arteries, one of which 100%, another 99% and the rest ranging between 80% and 90% in a short period of time of two and a half months, i.e., from 17th March, 1992 to the 9th of June, 1992, when the Coronary Angio Report disclosed these blockages in the arteries of his heart. 4. It is unacceptable that there was a clerical error in the Coronary Angio report of 9th June, 1992 wherein it had been stated that according to the complainant, he had suffered sharp chest pain lasting about half an hour "one and half months back" but in fact, he had suffered these chest pains "two and a half months earlier". It is also unbelievable that this so called clerical error was sought to be corrected by an affidavit of Dr. Daruwala on 7th July, 1993, and remained unnoticed by the complainant for over a year. 5. There is also evidence to show that the complainant has tried to create evidence firstly by changing the point of time at which he suffered myocardial infarction prior to the 9th June, 1992 and also by introducing fresh evidence in his rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit of the respondents in the form of discharge certificates issued by the Sion Hospital wherein it had been noted that he had suffered from "chest pain and perspiration". As noticed in the order of the Hon''ble President, there is no explanation at all as to why this document was not produced along with the complaint petition. 6. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the complainant has filed a false and vexatious complaint claiming damages of Rs. 55.90 lakhs from the Opposite Parties with a view to harass, intimidate and blackmail the latter. Considering the magnitude of the compensation claimed, this must have caused tremendous tension to the medical doctors concerned, disturbing their state of mind, shaken their confidence in their professional knowledge and skill and also disturbed them in their practice for which I feel they should be adequately compensated. We should also discourage such false and vexatious complaints being lodged before the Consumer Forums with a vew to harass and blackmail those who supply the goods and provide services to the community. 7. I, however, find that under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Forums can impose by way of costs only a sum not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- on a complainant where the Consumer Forum finds that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious. Considering the magnitude of the compensation claimed by the complainant in the present case I have no doubt, whatsoever that the award of costs of Rs. 10,000/- would be pitifully small and would not act as a deterrent against lodging of frivolous and vexatious complaints and harassment of suppliers of goods and providers of services who are otherwise not liable under the Act. The Consumer Forums should have the power to adequately compensate the parties who are maliciously and perhaps with a view a blackmail arraigned under the Consumer Protection Act, I consider it my duty to make the above observations so that the law makers may take notice of the same and take appropriate steps to ensure that the Consumer Protection Act is not misused.