1. The claimant who is by profession a lawyer made the claim that on 25.10.2007 he fell victim to a heart problem and was admitted in cardiology unit of DHQ hospital Faisalabad where on 28.10.2007 during his angiography test, his two arteries of the heart were found blocked and the defendant No.1 vide report dated 30.10.2007 advised the claimant for plantation of two stunts i.e Left Anterior Descending Artery & Left Circumflex Artery but the claimant was without required money and he was charged Rs.9000/- and Rs.800/- as angiography charges and bed charges respectively whereas the said cardiac unit was being run on the donations of philanthropists and the defendant No. 1 could conduct angioplasty, free of cost and it was 09.03.2008 when the claimant again got conducted angioplasty from the defendant No. 1 after having prior appointment and made the payment of Rs.100,000/- through bank draft at the name of defendant No. 3 and the defendant No.2 charged Rs.1000/& Rs.500/- as fee of disc and that of bed charges respectively from the claimant but without receipt. The claimant got the angioplasty report with Compact Disc dated 09.03.2008 after payment of Rs.1,000/-fee which showed that only stunt had been planted. This report was unsigned and the claimant after insistence got it on 05.06.2008 which showed that the Driver stunt was planted. The claimant has alleged that he was provided deceptive, defective and faulty service by the defendants as some complications like suffocation, depression, abnormal Blood Pressure, pain in the chest etc have occurred in his body. The claimant has made prayer for Rs.50,92,200/-as damages from the defendants and also tendered an affidavit during arguments in support of his claim.
2. The claim was hotly contested by all the defendants by filing separate written statements that the same was not maintainable in its present form, was barred by time and law and that the claimant had no cause of action. On facts, it was alleged that the Cardiology Unit of District Headquarter Hospital Faisalabad was being run on donations but every one was not eligible to get free medicine / treatment and that angiography test dated 28.10.2008 and angioplasty dt.09.03.2008 was performed with plantation of one stunt as the plantation of 2nd stunt could prove disastrous which was planted in his artery and other medicines and equipments were also used in the process. The defendant No.1 has also annexed with the written statement opinion of Dr. Abdul-Hafeez Ch, Professor, Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad Consultant Cardiologist of Allied & District Headquarter Hospitals, Faisalabad.
3. Arguments heard, record perused. The perusal of record file reveals that the claimant firstly got himself tested with angiography on 28.10.2007 and in the claim he seems dissatisfied from the proceedings of the day but he again paid visit on 09.03.2008 to get his angioplasty from the same consultant i.e defendant no.1 Dr. Javed Iqbal. It seems that the problem to the claimant is only that whether the plantation of stunt in one quantity or two in the artery of his heart was made. There is no mention in the unsigned or signed angioplasty report dated 09.03.2008 that two stunts were planted. Both the reports show that only one stunt was planted and the defendant No.3 has also placed copy of the bill of amount of Rs.101,000/- with detailed price of one stunt Driver BMS and that of the other equipments used for the plantation of stunt, dated 09.03.2008. So there is no mention at all that the claimant was charged with the price of two stunts. The written statement of the defendants is supported by the report of Prof. Dr. Abdul Hafeez Ch, Consultant Cardiologist of Allied Hospital of District Headquarter Hospital, Faisalabad. Which reads as under:- "In my opinion Angioplasty of OMI should not be attempted, as this will result shifting or plaque to AV circ which may prove disastrous."
4. Accordingly I see that there is no such case of defective and faulty service, prima-facie made out against the defendants as if the claimant was dissatisfied with the working of the defendant No.1 on 28.10.2007, there was no justification with him for getting treatment from the same consultant for Angioplasty on 09.03.2008. As regards the fact is concerned that cardiac center of the District Headquarter Hospital, Faisalabad is being run by donations, the claimant being an advocate by profession was entitled to get the medical facilities from the benevolent fund of the Bar Council meant for that purpose and did not fall under the category of poor and deserving patients and also did not claim as such before the defendants. The claimant has also mentioned some disorders in his healthy life but has not annexed there with the report of any physician that said disorders occurred due to any of the faulty service of defendant No.1.
5. All the claim of the claimant seems to be based on misconceptions and misunderstandings as on 28.10.2007 during angiography his LAD&LAC were found blocked and it was advised that two stunts can be offered but the report of the defendant No.1 dated 09.03.2008 shows that only one stunt was planted and the plantation of second stunt may prove disastrous.
6. The crux of the of the above discussion is that the claim is misconceived and not maintainable in its present form as to proceed further with the claimant, will be a futile and useless exercise as even if the evidence is recorded, the decision would be based on the documents annexed therewith the claim by the parties. There is no allegation by the claimant against the defendant no.1 regarding his inefficiency, deficiency in skill, disqualification or to be less qualified in the field of cardiology. There was not a single failure on the part of defendant No.1 during the performance of angioplasty through which one stunt was planted under required cardiac surgery process. All the allegations of the claimant stand rebutted and the process was followed by the defendants with due care and caution and the claimant has badly failed to prove incompetence, medical negligence and deficiency in services against the defendants. The claimant has failed to make out any case for defective, faulty or deceptive services against the defendants. Moreover the claim U/S. 28 sub section (4)of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 can be made within 30 days of arising of cause of action and the claimant got the report dated 09.03.2008, so the claim was also barred by time and it is accordingly dismissed with cost and file be consigned.