CHL APOLLO HOSPITAL INDORE Vs. ASHISH SANYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore and others (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioners') have filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No.1205/2006, which had allowed the complaint of Ashish Sanyal and others, Respondent herein.

(2.) Briefly, the facts according to the Respondent is that he had approached the Petitioners for consultation and treatment in respect of his wife, Reena Sanyal (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient') who was experiencing respiratory problems as also some problems in her chest and difficulty in walking. She was asked to meet Dr.Manish Porwal (Petitioner No.2) who after investigations and tests advised surgery to rectify a defective cardiac valve. Although, Respondent preferred to get this surgery done at Apollo Hospital, Chennai, he was persuaded by Dr.Vinod Somani (Petitioner No.3) that the surgery would be done with the same technique and procedure in the Petitioner/Hospital. Respondent, therefore, got his wife admitted on 19.08.2003 in the Petitioner/Hospital wherein the surgery was performed on 22.08.2003 at 8.30 am and Respondent was told that his wife would be discharged on the fourth day. However, on the night of 22.08.2003 her condition deteriorated and Respondent was asked to arrange blood which was given to her next day. There was no improvement and she passed away on 26.08.2003 at 4.35 am. The cause of death was stated as cardio respiratory arrest. Respondent alleged that death had occurred because Petitioners were negligent in the treatment of his wife and the two doctors also absented themselves when the condition of his wife was very serious. After obtaining the necessary medical papers with some difficulty, Respondent found that as per his wife's Blood Report dated 26.08.2003 her hemoglobin count was only 3.1 gm. and the surgery was conducted even though it is contra-indicated in a patient with such a low hemoglobin count. Respondent, therefore, filed a complaint on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in causing the death of his wife aged 37 years who has 3 minor children. Respondent, therefore, requested that Petitioners be directed to give him compensation of Rs.15 lakhs, reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- and any other relief which may be deemed appropriate.

(3.) The above contentions were contested by the Petitioners who stated that the doctors were professionally qualified and the hospital well equipped to conduct such procedures. The procedure was also successfully conducted on 22.08.2003. All necessary precautions were taken prior to the surgery, e.g. the patient was subjected to detailed pathological and diagnostic tests on 18.08.2003 which confirmed that her hemoglobin count was 11.2 gm. and all other parameters were also satisfactory for conducting such a surgery under local anesthesia. There was no reason to repeat the same procedure since there cannot be a drastic drop in the hemoglobin count within a period of 3-4 days unless there is heavy bleeding etc. However, when the condition of the patient deteriorated post-surgery, her hemoglobin test was done late at night on 22.08.2003 which showed that it was 3.1 gm. and necessary blood transfusion was arranged. Petitioners further stated that in fact Respondent had come to the Petitioner/Hospital for consultations in November, 2002 and although patient was advised for an immediate procedure, Respondent came back only after 9 months by which time the patient had become a high risk case. The surgical procedure was successful as is clear from the ECHO, but the patient continued to have persistent pulmonary hypertension which led to right side heart failure and cardiogenic shock etc. There was, however, no negligence on the part of Petitioners and death occurred in a high risk case despite the best possible medical care that was given to her.