D V RAMANA Vs. C NARASIMHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by one Mrs. D.V. Ramana against the order of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CDNo.66 of 2000. The appellant was the Complainant in the proceedings before the State Commission against Dr C. Narasimhan as OP-1 and Care Hospital, Hyderabad as OP -2. There is a delay of 13 days in filing the appeal which, in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the explanation tendered for it, has been condoned.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant suffered from palpitation, with pulse rate rising to 120-130 per minute, as against the normal of 65-80, at her age. The Complainant was advised to consult OP-1 Dr.C. Narasimhan, who diagnosed it as a case of tachycardia, a condition of sudden rise in heart rate., The case of the Complainant is that she was advised by OP-1 to undergo a medical procedure called Radio Frequency Ablation (RFA), which in his opinion, was necessary to arrest re-occurrence of tachycardia and to avoid infarction. As advised, the Complainant got admitted to 0P-2/CARE Hospital on 27.7.1999. The procedure was performed between 10.30 to 12.30, in the night.

(3.) The case of the Complainant is that in spite of the RFA procedure being performed on her, the problem of tachycardia continued and in fact, worsened, with the pulse rate fluctuating between 40 per minute to 130 per minute. It is alleged that due to continuation of the problem, OP-1 discontinued two medicines, calaptine and atenlol yet the fluctuations continued. Even on 2.8.1999 i.e. six days after the RFA procedure, the BP remained as high as 190/90. Finally, the Complainant consulted Dr. C.V. Rao of Nizam Institute of Medical Science (NIMS), on whose recommendation she had got the treatment from OP-1. According to the Complainant, Dr. C.V. Rao, after examining her, was of the opinion that she was suffering from post RFA, high grade AVblock (atrio ventricular block) created during the process of RFA. The Complainant also claims to have consulted Dr. Jayshanker, Head of the Department of Cardiology in NIMS. Both Dr. Jay Shanker and Dr. C.V. Rao were of the opinion that she could not be treated for continued palpitation as the anti arrhythmic drugs were only worsening the block created during RFA.