NIZAMS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Vs. S. RAMAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concept of interventional cardiology should expand beyond mechanical revascularization to encompass preventive interventions that forestall future events. There is need for uniform reporting system for Angiography reports to avoid confusion and unwanted litigations.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 11.02.2004, the Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient ') underwent Coronary Angiogram for his Cardiac check-up at the Opposite Party - Nizam 's Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the "NIMS "). The doctors at NIMS issued the Angiography report with films. The patient was advised for medical management. The Complainant again on 31.07.2004 suffered heart attack and his doctor at Rajahmundry reviewed the Angiogram film and report issued by NIMS and expressed that as per report the patient should not have suffered a heart stroke. The patient on 21.08.2004 approached Care Hospital at Hyderabad and consulted the Cardiologist who reviewed the previous Angiogram report and opined that there was presence of 75% critical lesion and LV dysfunction also. Again at 2 nd Coronary Angiogram was performed which revealed 99% critical lesion in proximal segment as well as two more lesions. Therefore, the patient was treated by Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) surgery. The Complainant/Patient incurred heavy expenses and also suffered mental agony. The Complainant being aggrieved due to alleged gross medical negligence of the doctors at NIMS who failed to report critical lesion correctly from 1 st Angiography procedure the Consumer Complaint was filed in the District Forum, Hyderabad.

(3.) The written version was filed by the Opposite Parties and denied the allegations of negligence.