Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 210
Instituted on : 05.04.2022.
Decided on : 10.08.2023.
Neeraj Kumar age 48 years, son of Shri Raghupat Sharma resident of House no.424, Gali no.3, New Azad Garh, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Owner/Director, Holly Heart Hospital, 33-Vinay Nagar, Delhi Bye-Pass Chowk, Rohtak alongwith Dr. Aditya Batra and Dr.Varun Gupta.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Vijay Pal Gehlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Batra, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the complainant/Neeraj Kumar was admitted twice to Holly Heart Hospital, Rohtak. He was firstly admitted from 10-10-2014 to 11-10-2014 vide CR No.325/2014 for the treatment of Ishemic Heart disease. He underwent Coronary Angiography (CAG) and Coronary Angioplasty (PICA and Stenting) to right Coronary Artery (RCA) via Right Radial Artery (RRA) puncture technique/routs of right forearm on 10-10-2014 after taking the consent from the wife of the complainant. The complainant was discharged on 11.10.2014. Complainant was again admitted to Holly Heart Hospital, Rohtak from 09-3-2015 to 25-03-2015 vide CR No.1006/15 with diagnose of Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). For that all proceedings, the signatures on the consent form put by the unknown person namely Rishi Pal whereas wife of the complainant always stay with the complainant/patient in the Hospital. Due to the negligence of Consulting Doctors complainant developed Hematoma on his right forearm following Coronary Invasive procedure done via Right Radial Artery punctured technique/route on 9-3-2015. Hematoma formed on right forearm lead to development of complication i.e. Right Forearm Compartment Syndrome (RT-FACS). Following Complications of Right FACS the patient developed Adema and tight compartment in right forearm leading to loss of pulse in right forearm and complete loss of finger movement in right hand. The Plastic Surgeon and Orthoepedician were consulted on 12-3-2015, 14-3-2015, 17-3-2015 and 24-3-2015. It was noticed by the consulting surgeon on 12-3-2015 that after invasive cardiac procedure edema, tight compartment (right forearm), loss of pulse and loss of right hand finger movement had developed in this patient. Fasciotomy operation and dressing was done on 12-3-2015, patient was reviewed by the Surgeon on 14-3-2015 and it was noted in case record that the patient had limited finger movement and monitoring for finger discoloration was advised by consultant surgeon. The Debridement of right forearm was done and fasciotomy further extended on 17-3-2015 and patient advised right upper limb elevation. It was noted by treating surgeon on 17-3-2015 that patient developed necrosin of muscles and skin of right forearm. Patient had bleeding muscles underneath as observed by the surgeon after debridement of the wound in right forearm as per record dated 17-3-2015. According to the record Dr. Aditya Batra take opinion for the treatment of the complainant from Dr. Vikas Dagar, Doctor of Sunflag Hospital, Sheila Bye-pass Chowk, Sonepat Road, Rohtak. The debridement of superficial necrosed muscles was again done on 24-3-2015. Patalent developed infection in the forearm and tissues culture growth identified the infecting organism as Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Patient was discharged on 25-3-2015 whereas the consulting doctors and attending doctors well aware that as per tissue culture report the right forearm of the patient was infected but even then they discharged him. Thereafter as per the guidance of the consulting doctors of Holly Heart Hospital, patient Neeraj Kumar/complainant was admitted to Burns and Plastic Surgery Department of P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak from 10-7-2015 to 1-8-2015 vide C.R.No.363495. He was admitted with complaint of blackening of right hand finger which occurred due to the act and conduct of the respondents. His examination in Burns and Plastic Surgery Department of P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak revealed that he had developed gangrenous changed in distal for phalanges of right hand fingers. Blackening of skin, loss of sensation and gangrenous changes had developed in second, third and fifth fingers of right hand. Thereafter for treating the gangrene of right hand patient underwent amputation of right hand finger on 26-7-2015 after consent of his wife and the amputation was done at proximal interphalanges (PIP, joint of index finger and little finger) and amputation also done at distal interphalanges (DIP, joint of middle finger of right hand). Exposed Bone Nibble was also done. Patient was discharged from P.G.I.M.S. Rohtak on 1-8-2015. The complainant suffered from a gross deformity of his right hand due to negligence on the part of opposite party. The complainant is unable to use his hand and suffered a complete functional loss of his right hand 65% disable. Complainant made so many complaints with the administration including SSP, Rohtak, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Health Minister, DGP Haryana, D.C.Rohtak but no action has been taken against the opposite party. On 06.02.2017 the Board of Doctors submitted their report to the Civil Surgeon, Rohtak but they were not competent doctors. Thereafter complaint gain made complaits with the higher authorities. On the complaint filed by the complainant on dated 31-12-2015 to the S.S.P., Rohtak in this regard, the Medical Superintendent, P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak constituted a Special Medical Board of Doctors. Dr.K.Laller, Sr. Professor and HOD. Cardiology, P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak is the Chairman of the Special Medical Board and Dr. S.S. Lochab, MS, MCH, FIACS, Sr. Professor and Head, Cardiac Surgery, P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak were Members of the Special Medical Board. On 03-08-2018, the Special Medical Board submitted their report to S.S.P., Rohtak vide letter No. Cardio/18/458, as per which the board has submitted that the alleged amputation of fingers resulting in complete functional loss of right hand has happened due to negligence on the part of opposite party. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 22.12.2018 upon the respondent but no satisfactory answer was given. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the amount of 45,00,000/- alongwith a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac only) as compensation and damages on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, for the physical harassment and economical loss, mental agony and social humiliation.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted the consent form was signed by Rishipal claiming himself as nephew of the complainant. It is further submitted that Smt. Rekha wife of complainant also signed on the said consent. Rishipal who was accompanied with complainant told himself as nephew of complainant and signed the consent form. It is further submitted that the wife of complainant has also signed on the consent form at the time of estimate given by the hospital for procedure to attendant of patient, so she was also present there at the time of procedure. The complainant was properly treated by the doctors of respondent without any delay in treatment and the complainant was discharged after the opinion of concerned doctors. The complainant was examined by the concerned doctors and it was opined by the doctors that the patient may be discharged on antibiotics and accordingly, the complainant was discharged. It is wrong and denied that after guidance of consulting doctors of Holy Heart Hospital complainant was admitted in PGIMS Rohtak. It is submitted that as per discharge card, in the case summary and history of injury, the patient told the consulting doctor that his hand was exposure to hot water. On the complaint of complainant to SSP Rohtak, the enquiry was conducted by the Medical board and it was found that treating doctor followed standard treatment guidelines in treatment and complication developed after procedure was managed satisfactorily and no negligence was proved. It is wrong and denied that the respondent has committed fraud with the complainant and cheated him by snatching huge amount for treatment. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C44 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.12.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and documents Ex/R7 to Ex.R8 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on dated 03.05.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, grievance of the complainant is that due to negligence on the part of opposite party the complainant underwent amputation of right hand fingers resulting in complete functional loss of right hand and is 65% disabled. To prove his case complainant has placed on record disability certificate Ex.C1, enquiry report Ex.C39 and other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C43 are regarding treatment record and complaints to higher authorities. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that there is no negligence on the part of opposite party in the treatment of complainant. It is further contended that at the time of treatment of complainant, consent was given by his wife Rekha. It is also contended that if the complainant was not satisfied with the treatment, then why his wife Rekha has taken the treatment after the discharge of complainant. To prove the same opposite party has placed on record Admission record Ex.R8 of Smt. Rekha, as per which the date of admission is 07.09.2015 and date of discharge is 14.09.2015 whereas the complainant was discharged from the hospital of opposite party on 25.03.2015. Opposite party has also placed on record consent form Ex.R6 which is duly signed by the wife of complainant Smt. Rekha and copy of enquiry report Ex.R7.
6. We have perused all the documents placed on record by both the parties. Initially the complaint has been made by the complainant before the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak on 29.09.2016. This complaint has been forwarded to the Civil Hospital Rohtak for obtaining opinion. The original file has been summoned by the Civil Surgeon Rohtak and as per letter No.CB/2017/44 dated 06.02.2020 placed on record as Ex.C33, a committee has been constituted having four members namely Dr. Kuldeep Singh DCS(F.W)
O/o C.S Rohtak, Dr. Rajvir Singh DCS(Med)O/o C.S Rohtak, Dr. Kunal Mo(Physician) and Dr. Manish Bansal Mo(Surgery) G.H.Rohtak. The committee has examined the file of the complainant, the complainant, Dr. Vikas Dagar, Dr. Kapil Sangwan and Dr. Aditya Batra. The committee also recorded the statements of the doctors. After examining the statement and record of the complainant’s file, the committee came into the conclusion that: “The committee has examined the case and gone through the literature from Scientific journal of Heart for Angioplasty through Radial Route Complications rate of radial approach is rare but possibility of remote complication could not be ruled out absolutely. The literature contains few detailed reports of compartment syndrome of arm caused by trans catheter angiography or angioplasty. Compartment Syndrome is rare complication and require surgical treatment and anticoagulation therapy. Following urgent fasciotomy and heamostasis. In this compartment syndrome was handled judiously and despite of all correchv major compartment syndrome was not progressed to total cure. As far as role of attending doctor is concerned they have done their job satisfactorily and negligency could not be proved”. Thereafter a second report was issued by the Chairman Special Medical Board. Sr.Professor & HOD Cardiology, PGIMS, Rohtak and Members, placed on record as Ex.C39. This report has been issued by the committee on the request of Superintendent of police Rohtak vide letter no.4652-P1 dated 31.12.2015. The conclusion of this report is as under:- 1. “Complication of right forearm Hematoma could have been prevented with due precaution. 2. Proper treatment of right forearm hematoma could have prevented development of right forearm compartment syndrome. 3. Early diagnosis & treatment of right forearm Compartment Syndrome (in Eight hours) could have prevented irreversible, damage to right &right forearm including loss of sensation in right hand, gangrene development in right hand needing amputation of fingers resulting in complete functional loss of right hand, gross deformity of right hand &marked disfigurement of right forearm”. 4. Consent of the patient/family which is necessary for on invasive cardiac operative procedure has not been obtained for procedures of Coronary Angiography, Coronary Angioplasty & Stenting performed on him on 09.03.2015”. The alleged report shows that the same is issued by two persons and no committee was constituted for the same. Thereafter an another report is issued by the board of doctors placed on record as Ex.R7. This report has been issued in compliance of Civil Surgeon letter No.CB-55/18/2019/270 dated 27.05.2019 after examining the whole treatment record of the complainant Neeraj. The complainant was again examined on dated 02.07.2019 by Cardiologist (Specialist Member) and other expert doctors. After examination the findings and opinion of the board is as under:- “ 1.There was no delay in primary treatment of Local haemotoma and treatment in form of local compression was started on same day(dated 9.3.15), 2.Compartment syndrome is a rare but well known complication of radial procedure for coronary artery. 3.Patient developed gangrene after four month from the index procedure and that too after exposure to hot water. Hence gangrene may have developed due to other contributing factors and the possibility of development of gangrene due to other contributing factor cannot be ruled out. 4. In view of above observation, the board is of opinion that treating doctor followed standard treatment guidelines in treatment and complication developed after the procedure was managed satisfactorily. Hence the negligence could not be proved”.
7. We have examined all the three opinions and expert enquiry reports placed on record by both the parties. In fact through this complaint, the complainant has submitted that a wrong treatment has been given by the opposite party which leads to amputation of his right hand finger(proximal interphalangeal-PIP) and distal interphalangeal(DIP, joint of middle finger of right hand). But the perusal of enquiry report shows that complainant has been discharged from the hospital on dated 25.03.2019 in stable condition. Thereafter patient remained in regular follow up of Holly Heart Hospital and he had not made any fresh complaint till 14.06.2015. Thereafter the patient was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak in Plastic Surgery Department on 10.07.2015 for c/o blackening of right hand fingers since 20 days(having history of exposure of hot water present), H/o loss of sensation of right hand and gangrene fingers right hand. Thereafter amputation was done on 26.07.2015. After perusal of this report and other relevant documents we came into the conclusion that complainant himself submitted before the treating doctor on 10.07.2015 that he suffered with blackening of right hand finger since 20 fays and there was a history of exposure to hot water and loss of sensation to right hand. As per our opinion, 6 expert members of different fields were present at the time of issuance of 3rd report issued in compliance of Civil Surgeon letter No.CB-55/18/2019/270 dated 27.05.2019. We are convinced with the report issued by this board placed on record as Ex.R7. As per the observation made by the board in Ex.R7 on the basis of expert opinion, the same is reliable and correct. Hence there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.08.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
