| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 116 of 14-03-2011 Decided on : 13-07-2012
Darshan Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o S. Janga Singh, R/o Dashmesh Nagar, Street No. 1, Naruana Road, Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Delhi Heart Institute and Research Centre, Namdev Marg, ( 40' Road), Bhatti Road, Bathinda, through Dr. Naresh Goyal, D.M. Cardio Dr. Naresh Goyal, D.M.Cardio, Delhi Heart Institute and Research Centre, Namdev Marg (40' Road), Bhatti Road, Bathinda. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. & Head Office, 24 Whites Road, Chennai through its M.D. Dr. Harshbir Singh Pannu (DR. H S Pannu) CTVS Surgeon # 1006, Sector 36 C, Chandigarh United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 54 Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi. ..... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Navjot Singh, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. Lalit Garg, counsel for opposite party Nos. 1, 2 & 5. Sh. M L Bansal, counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. Opposite party No. 6 already exparte.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he felt uneasiness and pain in left side of his chest and got himself checked up from the opposite parties on 27-03-2012. The attending doctor checked blood pressure as 160/100 and prescribed certain medicines which he started consuming as per advice. On 18-05-2009, the complainant again got himself checked-up from the opposite parties and his BP was recorded as 150/90. The opposite party No. 2 wrote words CAD Angina HTN and advised certain other medicines. The complainant continued getting the said medicines but he did not get relief. On 02-09-2009, the complainant felt severe pain in left side of his chest. He was taken by his family members to the opposite parties and they after conducting his preliminary diagnosis, disclosed that he was suffering from severe heart problem and got him admitted as indoor patient for further investigation and treatment. The opposite parties told the complainant and his family members that to know the extent of heart problem, Angiography is necessary. They got deposited Rs. 8650/- being Angiography charges and also conducted 2D Echo Doppler Colour and Doppler Carotid on the complainant on 03-09-2009. After conducting all the tests, the opposite parties conveyed that all the three main arteries are almost blocked and complainant is suffering from severe heart disease. The complainant alleged that Angiography conducted upon the complainant was very painful and he suffered severe physical pains. On 4-9-2009, the opposite party No. 2 disclosed that since the complainant is suffering from severe heart disease, it requires immediate operation i.e. CABG (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft) of all the three arteries to remove the blockage. The complainant and his family members asked opposite party No. 2 about the success and risk factors of said operation and on this, opposite party No. 2 assured them that after about three/four months of operation/grafting of all the arteries, there would be no problem to the complainant in future. The opposite party No. 2 asked the complainant and his family member to deposit Rs. 97,000/- as operation charges and accordingly, they deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- with the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 2 alongwith his other associates took the complainant to the operation theatre and conducted his operation on 6-9-2009. The complainant gained consciousness after about 8 to 10 hours. The opposite party No. 2 conveyed the complainant and his family members that he has conducted grafting of all the three arteries and now there was no blockage in any of the artery and after three/four months, the complainant would recover from weakness and there would be no problem of heart disease to him in future. The complainant was kept admitted as indoor patient upto 14-09-2009 and at the time of discharge, the opposite parties handed over the Discharge Summary indicating the disease, operation/grafting of all three arteries conducted on the complainant etc., The opposite parties advised the complainant to get himself checked up next week and if necessary after week's interval. The complainant got himself checked up from the opposite parties on 21-09-2009 and his BP was noted down as 120/80. Thereafter the complainant got himself checked up from the opposite parties on 21-09-2009 and then on 08-10-2009. The complainant consumed medicines and diet and took rest as advised by the opposite parties. In the month of September, 2010, the complainant again started feeling some uneasiness, chest pain etc., so he got himself checked up from Dr. Vitul Gupta of Kishore Ram Hospital, Bathinda on 12-09-2010 and disclosed the total history of his previous illness and treatment by the opposite parties. Dr. Vitul Gupta examined the complainant but could not diagnose his disease and suspected blockage in the arteries of his heart and referred him to Dr. Rajesh Jindal, D.M. Cardiology for Angiography to know the extent of blockage. Dr. Rajesh Jindal, Cardiologist, Jindal Heart Institute and Infertility Centre, Power House Road, Bathinda conducted certain clinical tests of the complainant on 13-09-2010 and Angiography test on 14-09-2010. The complainant alleged that he and his family members were astonished to know from Dr. Jindal that there is 100% blockage in one of his artery. Dr. Jindal prescribed some medicines. The complainant is regularly getting treatment from Dr. Vitul Gupta. The complainant alleged that if the opposite parties would have done grafting of all the arteries, there was no necessity of getting regular medicine by the complainant. It is suspected that the complainant would get grafting/by pass surgery of the third artery done to clear the blockage from some other Institute and would spend more than Rs. 2.00 Lacs. Hence, he has filed the present complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 1,56,148/- charged from him and spent by him so far alongwith compensation and costs. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed their joint written statement and pleaded that opposite party No. 1 has multiple wings of Doctors namely Dr. Rupinder Singh Sidhu D.M. (Gastro), Dr. Dalbir Brar, M.S. Mch. (Ortho), Dr. Vikas Jindal M.S. DNB (General Surgery), Dr. Rajan Sharma M.S. DNB (Urology), Dr. Archna Goyal MD. (Radio Diagnosis). Besides the above named regular Doctors, there are many Specialists including Dr. Harshbir Singh Pannu, MBBS, MS. Mch, Chief Cardio Vascular Surgeon, Member International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery. It has been pleaded that complainant got himself checked up from the opposite parties on 27-03-2009 and then on 18-5-2009 i.e. after one month 21 days. The medicines are generally prescribed for 7 to 10 days and complainant was required to get himself checked up again after 7 to 10 days if he would not have relieved from the problem, but he did not come for consultation within that period for the reason best know to him. The opposite parties have pleaded that Coronary Angiography was done on 2-09-2009 on the person of the complainant besides conducting 2D Echo Colour Doppler and Doppler Carotid was conducted on 3-9-2009. It was diagnosed that the complainant was suffering from severe inferior wall hypokinesia and all the cardiac chambers were found normal in dimensions and further mild concentric LVH was found present. The opposite parties have denied that Angiography was painful in any manner as local anaesthesia was given. After conducting Angiography, 2D Echo Colour Doppler and Doppler Carotid, the complainant and his attendants were disclosed that the arteries of the heart of the complainant are blocked and after investigation, cardiac surgery was advised. The opposite parties have pleaded that there are three arteries which supplies blood to the heart and out of these, two arteries remains dominant and one artery is non-dominant in some human being. The complainant and his attendants were clearly disclosed that the CABG would be done by Dr. Harshbir Singh Pannu who was a visiting Specialist with the opposite party No. 1 at the relevant time and Dr. Kaistha and Dr. Vinod Garg would be Anaesthetist at the time of operation with other nursing staff. After counselling with the complainant and his attendants, the grafting of two arteries i.e. LAD and D1 was done by way of surgery by Dr. Harshbir Singh Pannu on 6-09-2009. The complainant was monitored after every hour to see his condition. The opposite parties have pleaded that the RCA artery of the complainant remained non-dominant while conducting surgery two arteries i.e. LAD and D1 were grafted whereas non-dominant artery (RCA) was not needed to be grafted. When main arteries of the complainant i.e. LAD and D1 being dominant were grafted, there was no need of grafting the third artery i.e. RCA. The opposite parties have denied that the complainant or any of his attendants was disclosed that grafting of all the three arteries has been conducted rather it was disclosed that the grafting of dominant arteries has been done. At the time of discharge, the Discharge Summary alongwith Angiography report and other relevant papers were handed over to the attendants of the complainant. The Discharge Summary indicate that CABD has been done in two arteries i.e. LIMA to LAD, RSVG to D1 (ANT. + POST. BRACHES SEQUENTALLY). The Angiography report indicate that CABG has been done only of LAD and D1 being dominant and RCA has been reported to be non-dominant. The complainant was advised to take the diet as per the chart for recovery and to avoid such like problem in future. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the Angiography report made by Dr. Rajesh Jindal indicate that one of the artery i.e. RCA is non-dominant and no defect whatsoever has been reported by Dr. Jindal with regard to grafting of two other arteries i.e. LAD and D1 and Dr. Jindal has not pointed out that non-grafting of non-dominant artery has resulted into any problem. Dr. Jindal has advised the complainant to continue same treatment (Rx/CST) and no problem whatsoever has been reported and even the BP noted down was normal i.e. 120/80. The opposite parties have further pleaded that in every Heart Institute in such like cases the grafting by way of surgery is done only of dominant arteries and non-dominant artery is not grafted. Even Dr. Jindal in his Angiography report has indicated that RCA (one of the artery) is non-dominant i.e. non-functional and there remains no need of grafting the non-dominant artery. The regular medicine is liable to be taken by the complainant during his remaining life period, for which he cannot claim from anyone. The opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 in their joint written version stated that the complainant be put to strict proof to prove his version. If there was any problem to the complainant, he should have contacted the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 but he has failed to disclose as to why he did not revisit the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 . It has been pleaded that no negligence is proved on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and as such, this complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party No. 5 filed his separate written statement and pleaded that he firstly counselled with the complainant and his attendants and thereafter he did grafting of three arteries i.e. LAD and D1 (2 branches) by way of surgery on 6-9-2009. The opposite party No. 5 at that time was associated by Dr. Kaistha and Dr. Vinod Garg, Anaesthetists . The discharge slip was prepared by opposite party No. 5 and the details of the procedure done were high lighted in the Discharge Certificate i.e. OPCABG X 3 LIMA to LAD and RSVG to D1 (ANT. (Anterior) + POST. (Posterior) BRANCHES SEQENTALLY i.e. grating from Lima (Left Internal Memory Artery) to LAD (Left Anterior Descending), RSVAG (right Saphenosis Vein Grafting) to D1 (Two Branches) and Dr. Kaishta and Dr. Vinod Garg were Anaesthetists. This entire procedure of grafting was done and no part of Discharge Summary report is incorrect. The complainant was monitored after every hour to see his condition. There was blockage in LAD, D1 and RCA arteries. The RCA artery of the complainant remains non-dominant while conducting surgery two arteries i.e. LAD and D1, which adequately sized 2.0 and 1.0 mm and graftable were grafted whereas non-dominant artery (RCA) was not needed to be grafted of being non-doment and very small (<1m) size which technically cannot be granted. When the main arteries of the complainant i.e. LAD and D1 being dominant were grafted, there was no need of grafting the third artery i.e. RCA. The opposite party No. 5 has admitted that complainant and his attendants were disclosed that grafting of the relevant three dominant arteries has been conducted. The entire medical record indicates that the complainant was operated by the opposite party No. 5 and it was not proper on the part of the complainant to make false allegations against opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 was clear in his mind that the problem being faced by the complainant can better be done by the Cardiothoractic Vascular Surgeon and the services of the opposite party No. 5 were available in Delhi Heart Institute and research Institute and as such, the Cardiac Surgery was done by opposite party No. 5 with the help of his team of doctors and staff. The Angiography report made by Dr. Rajesh Jindal indicate that one of the artery i.e. RCA is non-dominant and no defect whatsoever has been reported by Dr. Jindal with regard to grafting of two other arteries i.e. LAD and D1. However graft to D1 got blocked and vein grafts are known to get early blockage due to clotting of blood (Thrombosis) in 5 to 10% cases in first year after bye pass surgery. This may be more so if anti-clotting medication is taken irregularly or there is tendency to clotting in the body and Dr. Jindal has not pointed out that non-grafting of non-dominant artery has resulted into any problem. Dr. Jindal has advised the complainant to continue same treatment (Rx/CST) and no problem whatsoever has been reported and even the BP noted down was normal i.e. 120/80. Even Dr. Jindal in his Angiography report has indicated that RCA (one of the artery) is non-dominant i.e. non-functional and there remains no need of grafting the non-dominant artery. No problem is being caused by non-grafting of non-dominant artery since the patient was without chest pain for one year term after operation, but problem may be caused by blocked graft which can occur by blood clotting/non-compliance in taking anti-clotting medication or due to inherent tendency to clot within the body. The regular medicine is to be taken by the complainant during his remaining life period, for which he cannot claim from anyone. Registered notice of complaint was sent to opposite party No. 6 but despite service, none appeared on its behalf and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against it. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The allegation of the complainant is that he suffered pain in the left side of his chest. He visited opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 who after conducting preliminary diagnosis, disclosed him that he was suffering from severe heart problem. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 after conducting all the tests, conveyed the complainant that all the three main arteries of his heart are blocked, so he has to go through immediate operation i.e. CABG (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft) of all the three arteries to remove the blockage. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 conducted operation upon the complainant on 6-09-2011. He was kept admitted as indoor patient upto 14-09-2009 and at the time of discharge, the opposite parties handed over a Discharge Summary indicating the disease, operation/grafting of all the three arteries. The complainant alleged that he kept on visiting the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and has been taking the medicines, diet, walking and taking rest as advised by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. In the month of September, 2010 i.e. after a year, he again felt some uneasiness and chest pain. He got himself checked up from Dr. Vitul Gupta of Kishori Ram Hospital, Bathinda on 12-09-2010. The said doctor suspected blockage in the arteries in the heart and accordingly, he referred him to Dr. Rajesh Jindal, Cardiologist, Jindal Heart Institute and Infertility Centre, Power House Road, Bathinda, who after conducting the Angiography of the complainant told him that there is 100% blockage in one of the artery of the complainant. The complainant alleged that opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have clearly mentioned in the discharge summary that CABG x 3 i.e. grafting has been done of all the 3 arteries, but they did not do the grafting of one of the artery which is clear from the Angiography report of Dr. Rajesh Jindal. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant is still suffering from that old heart problem for which he was told to be treated. If the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have done grafting of all the three arteries, there was no necessity of such medicine and he would not have spent huge amount Hence, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,56,148/- in addition to Rs. 3,00,000.- being compensation and cost from the opposite parties. The submission of opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 5 is that the operation was conducted on the complainant by Dr. Harshbir Singh Pannu, MBBS, MS, Mch, i.e. opposite party No. 5 and at that time he was associated by Dr. Kaistha and Dr.Vinod Garg, Anaesthetists. He did grafting of three arteries i.e. LAD and D1 (2 branches) by way of surgery on 6-9-2009. The details of the procedure done were high lighted in the Discharge Certificate i.e. OPCABG x 3 LIMA to LAD and RSVG to D1 Ant ( Anterior) + Post (Posterior) Branches (Sequentally) i.e. grating from Lima (Left Internal Memory Artery) to LAD (Left Anterior Descending), RSVAG (right Saphenosis Vein Grafting) to D1 (Two Branches). There was blockage in LAD, D1 and RCA arteries. The RCA artery of the complainant remains non-dominant while conducting surgery two arteries i.e. LAD and D1, which adequately sized 2.0 and 1.0 mm were graftable and grafted whereas non-dominant artery (RCA) was not needed to be grafted or being non dominant and very small (<1mm) size which technically cannot be grafted. The submission of the opposite parties is that when main arteries of the complainant i.e. LAD and D1 being dominant were grafted, there was no need of grafting the third artery i.e. RCA. The opposite parties further submitted that the complainant and his attendants was disclosed that grafting of the relevant three arteries has been conducted and that the grafting of dominant arteries has been done. The angiography report made by Dr. Rajesh Jindal indicate that one of the artery i.e. RCA is non-dominant and no defect whatsoever has been reported by the said doctor with regard to grafting of two other arteries i.e. LAD and D1. However graft to D1 got blocked and vein grafts are known to get early blockage due to clotting of blood (Thrombosis) in 5 to 10% cases in first year after by-pass surgery. This may be more so if anti-clotting medication is taken irregularly or there is tendency to clotting in the body and Dr. Jindal has not pointed out that non-grafting of non-dominant artery has resulted into any problem. The submission of the opposite parties is that no problem is being caused by non-grafting of non-dominant artery since the patient was without chest pain for one year term after operation, but problem may be caused by blocked graft which can occur by blood clotting/non-compliance in taking anti-clotting medication or due to inherent tendency to clot within the body. The main allegation of the complainant is that he was treated at Delhi Heart Institute and the doctors of said institute operated him by telling that he was suffering from TVD (Triple Vessel Disease), but despite CABG (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft) of all the three arteries to remove the blockage, he is still suffering from the old disease for which he approached to Delhi Heart Institute for his proper treatment. Ex. C-4 is the Discharge Summary of the complainant handed over to him by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 at the time of discharge from the hospital. The relevant portion of the said summary reads as under :- “...Diagnosis CAD (Unstable Angina) : Moderate LV DYSFUNCTION (EF+45%) CART – TVD (02-09-2009) RISK FACTORS OLD IWMI PROCEDURE DONE OPCABGX3 : LIMA to LAD, RSVG to D1 (ANT=POST BRANCHES SEQENTIALLY) ON 06-09-2009 CLINICAL SUMMARY History of Presenting Illness Patient is non-hypertensive, non-diabetic and has no family history of ischemic heart disease. He was admitted in the hospital with history of chest pain which exacerbates after physical exertion (including walking for some distance 50-100 meters) X 6 months (on & off). Patient underwent coronary angiography on dated 02-09-2009 which revealed TVD. Patient was advised CABG.” “Surgical Notes Surgical Note : Patient under went CABGX3 on 06-09-2009. He had uneventful course in post operative period . At discharge wounds are healthy and sternum stable. INVESTIGATIONS - 2D ECHO DOPPLER COLOUR : 03-09-2009, SEVERE INFERIOR WALL HYPOKINESIA ALL CARDIAC CHAMBERSKL NORMAL IN DIMENSIONS LVEF-45% MILD CONCENTRIC LVH PRESENT DIASTOLIC DYSFUNCTION NO PE/THROMBUS/VEGETATIONS” “ANGIOGRAPHY REPORT 02-09-2009 LAD 80% PROXIMAL STENOSIS 85% MID STENOSIS 90% PROXIMAL STENOSIS IN D1 LEFT CIRCUMFLEX 90% OSTIAL STENOSIS IN PDA-LCX RCA NON DOMINANT 100% OSTIAL STENOSIS ULTRA SOUND UPPER ABDOMEN – 03-09-2009 FATTY LIVER” After about a year, the complainant got conducted Angiography from Jindal Heart Institute & Infertility Centre vide Ex. C-29. The relevant portion of said report reveals as under :- “ANGIOGRAPHIC RESULT : LMCA – Normal LAD - 100% stenosis in mid vessel D1 - 95% stenosis in proximl vessel LCX - Minor plaqing in distal vessel OM1 - Normal OM2 - Normal RCA – Non-dominant, 100% occlusion in mid vessel PDA – Arising from LCX, normal PLV – Arising from LCX, normal GRAFT ANGIO LIMA – lad patent SVG – D1 100% blocked DOMINNCE : Left RECOMMENDATION : Medical follow up.” A perusal of record reveals that blockage was in LIMA to LAD, RSVG to D1 (Anterior & Posterior) and RCA Arteries and the RCA is non-dominant. Under these circumstances only main arteries i.e. LIMA to LAD and RSVG to D1 (Anterior & Posterior) (two branches) were grafted for supply of blood to the heart and non-dominant artery i.e. RCA under these circumstances need not to be grafted. According to Angiography report conducted by Dr. Rajesh Jindal on 14-09-2010, it indicates that grafting of dominant arteries i.e. LIMA to LAD, RSVG to D1 (Anterior & Posterior) have been grafted and that RCA being dominant is still blocked. As per medical record of Dr. Jindal , he neither advised that non-dominant artery was too liable to be grafted nor he grafted the same and he has advised the medicines only, hence the contention of the complainant that in discharge summary issued by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 it has been mentioned “CABGX3”is not tenable. Moreover, the Angiography is not a treatment. It is a test to know the extent of blockage of heart arteries. The treatment given to the complainant was grafting of three dominant arteries to remove the blockage from LIMA to LAD, RSVG to D1 (Anterior & Posterior) which was done and thereafter none of the doctor has advised any operation. As per “Significant Restenosis of Multiple Saphenous Vein Grafts Early After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery “ a Case Report” Med Cases – 2011: 2 (5) 206-209. :- Abstract Despite the benefits of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft surgery, 15% to 25% of patients develop graft closure within one year following the procedure. The patency rate of grafts mainly predicts both the short and long term benefit from surgery. Here we report a patient diagnosed as acute coronary syndrome five months after surgery with significant stenosis of multiple saphenous vein grafts. According to Free Journal Research – Myocardial Perfusion SPECT Imaging in Patients after coronary Revascularization - .....Sephenous vein graft occlusion rates range between 8% (early) and 45% (11.5 years after CABG surgery), while the 10 year occlusion rate for arterial conduits such as the internal mammary artery is about 20%, PCI restenosis rates without stenting range between 20%-65% during the first 6 months of follow-up while coronary stenting has been shown to reduce restenosis rates of about 20%. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant has moved an application requesting this Forum that the board of doctors, especially from outside the Bathinda District, may be constituted to know the previous, present ailment of the complainant and as well as to know about the standard of the treatment given to him. Accordingly in the interest of justice and keeping in view the technicalities, his application was allowed and his medical record case was forwarded to Government Medical College, Amritsar, wherein a board was constituted having a team of three doctors namely Dr Sudhir Khichy, M.S., MCH (Surgery), Chairman, Prof & Head Dept. of Surgery, GMC, Amritsar ; Dr. K S Sidhu, M.S. Mch, DNB, Member,Prof & Head Dept of CTVS, GMC, Amritsar ; Dr. Rajiv Arora, M.D. D.M. Member, Asso. Prof. Dept. of Cardiology GMC, Amritsar. The said committee after examining complete record including the CD of both DHI and CD of repeat CART done by Dr. Jindal alongwith their sketches and medicine prescriptions, has opined that : - “ The surgical treatment has been on the right scientific lines, keeping in view the coronary anatomy of both the coronaries. The left coronary system is dominant and has been grafted. Since the right coronary is non dominant and is a short stump like structure with diffuse disease, it has been rightly ignored as it would not have benefited the patient. The RSVG sequential graft from aorta to the diagonal branches is patent to the one of the diagonal branches but the patency of the other branch could not be visualised. As per the large scientific date available on patency of saphenous venous graft, approx 90% of the venous graft are patent at the end of 1 year. Therefore 10% of the venous grafts may get blocked despite being grafted by the correct technique and in the best of the experienced hands.” And finally the aforesaid 'Board' concluded :- “So, finally the committee is of the view that the patient has been treated on the right scientific lines and there has been no deficiency in the services provided by the concerned institution.” Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the view that the complainant has failed to prove medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, in the case titled 2010(1) CPJ 1 (NC) Pushkar Dutt Vs. Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and Another wherein it has been held that :- Medical Negligence – Surgery - Necessity disputed – 70%, 50% blockage of arteries reported in angiography report – Petitioner suffered two heart attacks in quick succession - Immediate surgery decided by doctors – Surgery abandoned after reopening of heart, as blood found in pericardium, surgery could have been dangerous to life of patient – No deficiency in service/medical negligence proved – Contention surgery not required to be conducted not acceptable in absence of expert evidence in support – No relief entitled.” The support can also be sought from the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in the cases :-
i) 2010 (1) CPR 49(NC) Suresh Jain Vs. Dr. Mukesh Jain and Others wherein it has been held :- “Doctors cannot be held responsible for the negligent acts of patients who are adamant and decide on their own as to what to do and when to take the treatment and do not follow the instructions given to them by the treating doctors”. ii) 2009 (2) CPR 295 (NC) Master Nitish Sethi & Ors., Vs. Dr. Naresh Trehan & Ors. Wherein it has been held :- “Allegation that heart massage was done by untrained and unqualified doctors was unsubstantiated by any material on record – Ops rendered treatment based on known medical text procedures – Allegations made by complainant were not substantiated by any evidence – Mere allegations apprehensions, conjectures and surmises cannot be relied upon unless they are corroborated with evidential value to be conclude that there is deficiency in service or negligence on part of opposite parties – No deficiency in service or negligence found on part of opposite parties – complaint having no merit, dismissed” The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the matter crystal clear and settled the law in the following titled cases :- (i) Titled 2009(1) CPR 231 (SC) Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq :- “....(ii) Medical Negligence – Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightway liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur – No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to the patient.”
(ii) Titled 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 161 Kusum Sharma & Others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others – wherein it has been held that :- “......7. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.” (iii) Titled 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 836 Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., wherein it has been held :- “ ....(3) No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to the patient as the professional reputation of the person is at stake. (4) A surgeon with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine to his patient.”
In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the view that the complainant has failed to prove medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties whereas the expert evidence produced on file proves that the patient has been treated on the right scientific lines. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free
of cost and file be consigned for record.
Pronounced in open Forum
13-07-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
