RAUSHANI DEVI Vs. MAHARAJA AGRASEN HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has filed this complaint under Section 21 and 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in treatment of complainant 's deceased husband Mr. Radhakihsan Garg and has claimed compensation of Rs.52,50,000/ - from them under various heads.

(2.) THE facts of this case The Complainant 's husband Late Shri Radha Kishan Garg, a businessman about 50 years of age with earnings about Rs. 20,000/ - per month. He was the head of the family and in sound health without any major disease. On 09.01.2002 Shri Radha Kishan (herein as Patient) went to OP -Hospital with a complaint of chest pain. He was diagnosed as a chronic case of acid peptic disease and the treatment was advised. As the patient had continued chest pain for further two days consulted the OP - 2 and 3 on 11.01.2002 after laboratory and ECG investigation he was diagnosed as Acute Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction ( in short AIWMI). Accordingly, the OP -2, Dr. Amar Singhal advised Coronary Angiography (CAG) and continued with the same treatment of acid peptic disease and also insisted the complainant to deposit Rs.2 lacs for by -pass surgery. On next day i.e. 12/01/2002 at 11:00am Dr. Amar Signal and Dr. Prakash Jain conducted CAG and as per OP showed Triple Vessel Disease (TVD), thereafter Percutaneous Trans luminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) conducted only on Rt Coronary Artery ( RCA) despite respondent demanded Rs.2 lacs from complainant for this RCA. After post operation OP recorded its progress report stating the jerking in eye, vomiting, giddiness, etc. which clearly signifies some problem in brain of the patient. The patient was referred to a Neurologist who diagnosed the case as " Posterior Circulation Stroke " and advised for C.T. Scan and MRI of head region. The neurologist advised injection Clexane, if there was no bleeding in C.T and withheld Tab. Monotrate but the OP -2 Dr. Amar Singhal after seeing the C.T. Report, restarted the injection of Clexane . Hence, it was against the Neurologist 's advice which was administered earlier to the C.T. Scan which revealed massive bleeding in the brain. As Clexane is blood thinner which results in further bleeding or hemorrhage. Also stopping of tablet Monotrate despite patient suffering from CAD and high blood pressure. The complainant also complained that as the OP -1 is Heart Institute not taken proper care to control the high blood pressure of patient and it was illogical to withhold Tablet Monotrate.

(3.) THE complainant who was not well qualified and unaware of complexities of the case deposited Rs two lacs on account of By -pass surgery. But, actual cost for angioplasty was between Rs.20,000 to 40,000/ - therefore OP not performed By -Pass surgery but charged Rs.1,50,200/ - for angioplasty. Thereafter on 15/1/2002, the family members of complainant held a meeting with one Mr. Laxmi Narain, one of the trustees of hospital along with the OP doctors in which it was admitted that the case was not handled properly.