NEERA ARYA Vs. BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF CH. AISHI RAM BATRA PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants -- Complainants against the Order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Complaint Case No. 71/2006, wherein the Consumer Complaint was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Mr. Harish Arya (hereinafter referred to as the "patient") a wholesale pharmaceutical businessman, on 20.05.2004 at about 5:30am experienced slight chest discomfort. His brother, Dr. Ashok Arya checked him, the Blood Pressure (BP) was 140/90 mm of Hg and called his friend Dr. Chug to bring ECG machine, who immediately came at 6.05 to the residence and ECG was conducted. Dr. Chug telephoned the Cardiologist, Dr. Sanjeev Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party No. 2) who advised to take the patient Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as "Batra Hospital - the Opposite Party No. 1") and he will reach in short time. Accordingly, the patient's brother Dr. Ashok Arya admitted the patient to Batra Hospital at 6:30 am. Another ECG was conducted by the on duty resident doctor at 6.40 am and informed about the stable condition of patient and administered few medicines. It was alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2, without examining the patient and reports, telephonically informed the resident doctor to shift the patient to Cath Lab-A for Angiography. Accordingly, the patient got shifted to Cath Lab. A., though Opposite Party No. 2 did not reach the hospital. It was further alleged that Dr. R. D. Yadave (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party No. 3") without examining the patient or ECG; started the Coronary Angiography (CAG) procedure. It was solely based on the telephonic discussion with the Opposite Party No. 2.

(3.) It was alleged that the patient's brother Dr. Ashok Arya was not given any prior information to about the decision to perform Angioplasty. At 7:20 am, the Opposite Party No. 2 arrived in the hospital, compared the two ECGs and joined the Opposite Party No. 3 in the Cath Lab-A. The Opposite Party No. 3 had already performed Angiography and he was about to start Angioplasty procedure. The Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 informed the patient's brother that the only branch of Left coronary artery- Left Anterior Descending (LAD) was 100% blocked and needs one Stent. However, later on, it was told that Angioplasty was also conducted on the Right Coronary Artery (RCA) and one Stent was put in RCA at the Posterior Descending Artery (PDA) bifurcation and carried out Ballooning of Right Ventral branch. At about 9.20 am, the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 declared that procedure was successful and the patient was shifted to Recovery Room. However, at about 10.20 a.m., the patient was again taken to Cath Lab B for Angiography and Complainants were told to arrange for blood. It was alleged that though there was no problem with the RCA but the doctors performed Angioplasty of RCA and a Stent was put in its PDA branch which led to complete cut-off of the blood supply to the RV branch and death of the patient. At 1.00 pm, the Opposite Party No. 3 informed the patient's brother Dr. Ashok Arya that the patient could not be saved despite proper Angioplasty.