Appeared at the time of arguments

For the Appellant               :       Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, Advocate

Ms. Kanti, Advocate

For the Respondents           :       Ms. K. Radha, Advocate

Pronounced on:  17^th May 2023

ORDER

1.       The Appellant / Complainant has filed the instant Appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”), against the Order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 65 of 2012, wherein the State Commission, dismissed the Complaint filed by the Complainant.

2.       For the convenience, the Parties are being referred to as the position held by them in Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.

3.       Brief facts that on 18.07.2011 the Complainant Digumurthy Krishna Murthy, a senior citizen underwent Executive Health Check-up Apollo Hospital (OP-1). His status of heart revealed as below:

• Systolic High BP Response
• No chest Pain/Arrhythmia
• Average Effort Tolerance
• Test is positive for Inducible Ischemia

4.       It was alleged that the Consultants told him that there was no problem. Therefore, believing the words of the Consultant, the Complainant went to his native place on 19.07.2011. On the next day i.e. 20.07.2011, the Complainant suffered chest pain and was shifted to Dr. Ramesh Cardiac and Multispecialty Hospital, Vijayawada where doctors conducted angiogram which revealed double vessel disease with RCA 100% block in mid-segment and primary PCI with stent to mid RCA. It was diagnosed as the Complainant was suffering from Acute Infero-posterior wall Ml, Killips Cl.II Mild to Moderate LV Systolic Dysfunction, HTN, S/p Primary PCI with stent to Mid RCA. It was alleged that the hospital has negligently remarked 'TMT- Negative' in final impression and failed to advise him to consult a cardiologist for treatment of coronary disease. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.

5.       The Opposite Parties, in their Written Version, denied any negligence during the treatment. It was submitted that due to abnormal lipid profile and blood pressure of the Complainant, he was at high risk of heart attack. Therefore, he was advised to consult the Cardiologist at the earliest. However, the Complainant did not show any inclination to get himself checked by a cardiologist in OP-1 hospital. The Consultant advised him medicines and suggested low fat diet. There is no guarantee that cardiac or neurological events can occur at any point of time to the patient or even normal persons. Though, the Complainant got his Executive Health Checkup with tests, but he had no inclination to consult or to take treatment from the doctors at OP-1. In fact, he opted to go to the doctor of his acquaintance. Thus, it was the Complainant's negligence in not approaching the doctors concerned cannot be attributed to the opposite parties. Therefore, there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.       The State Commission, upon hearing the parties and considering the averments, dismissed the Complaint as ordered below:-

“..16. To sum up, the complainant underwent angioplasty for his double vessel disease with RCA 100% blocked in midsegment in Ramesh Cardiac and Multi-Specialty Hospital. It is not that he underwent angioplasty in the opposite parties hospital and they committed negligence for which the complainant has suffered mental agony. The complainant has only underwent health checkup To sum up, the complainant underwent angioplasty for his double vessel disease with RCA 100% blocked in midsegment in Ramesh Cardiac and Multi-Specialty Hospital. It is not that he underwent angioplasty in the opposite parties hospital and they committed negligence for which the complainant has suffered mental agony. The complainant has only underwent health checkup”.

“..17. On the basis of the above discussion and legal position, we come to the conclusion that opposite parties no. 1 and 2 were not guilty of medical negligence and therefore, the complaint against them fails and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the point No.1 framed for consideration at paragraph No.9, supra, in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite parties.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned Order, the Complainant filed the instant Appeal. 

8.       Heard the arguments from the learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the material on record inter alia the impugned Order and medical record. The Counsel on both the sides reiterated their evidence.

9.       The learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that the consultant did not advise him for any procedure to be done thereafter, but prescribed only medication, the OP falsely stated that the doctor orally conveyed to the Complainant to consult a cardiologist. As per the usual code of conduct of medical practitioners, doctor is duty bound to give a written advice to consult a cardiologist in a medical book/ prescription. He relied upon the decision of this Commission in Indrani Bhattacharjee vs. Chief Medical Officer, Farakka Super Thermal Power Project P.O. Nabarun, Distt Murrshidabad West Bengal[1].

10.     On careful perusal, it is evident that the Complainant had underwent executive health check-up at OP-1 Hospital. However, in the final impression, inadvertently, TMT-negative was mentioned. The Complainant did not produce any expert evidence or any medical literature to prove that he suffered heart attack due to such negative report. The Consultant, who had seen the executive check-up report certainly advised for further consultation with Cardiologist. The Complainant had not produced any evidence that he was not advised for Cardiologist consultation. In my view, mere allegations in the complaint, unsupported by any evidence, are inviolable truth.

11.     In this context, I would like to rely upon the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre vs. Asha Jaiswal & Ors.[2], whereby it was held in paragraphs 32 and 34 of judgment as below:-

32. In C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.), MS (Ortho) v. S. Ramanujam[3], this Court held that the Commission ought not to presume that the allegations in the complaint are inviolable truth even though they remained unsupported by any evidence. This Court held as under:

“37. We find from a reading of the order of the Commission that it proceeded on the basis that whatever had been alleged in the complaint by the respondent was in fact the inviolable truth even though it remained unsupported by any evidence. As already observed in Jacob Mathew case [(2005) 6 SCC 1 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1369] the onus to prove medical negligence lies largely on the claimant and that this onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence. A mere averment in a complaint which is denied by the other side can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be evidence by which the case of the complainant can be said to be proved. It is the obligation of the complainant to provide the facta probanda as well as the facta probantia.”

34. Recently, this Court in a judgment reported as Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh & Others[4] held that hospital and the doctors are required to exercise sufficient care in treating the patient in all circumstances. However, in an unfortunate case, death may occur. It is necessary that sufficient material or medical evidence should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at the conclusion that death is due to medical negligence.

12.     Based on the discussion above and the precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the doctors have performed their duties as per the reasonable standards. There was no deficiency during treatment of the patient. I do not find any error to interfere in the Order of the State Commission.  Same is affirmed.

The instant Appeal is dismissed.  There shall be no Order as to costs.