POOJA PRASHAR Vs. DIRECTOR INDRAPRASTHA APPOLLO HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Complaint has been filed by legal heirs of late Col. (Rtd.) Ashok Prashar under Sec. 21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Director, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi/Opposite Party No. 1 and Dr. MR Rajasekhar of Dept of HPB Surgery and Organ Transplant/Opposite Party No. 2.

(2.) On 21/1/2004, Col. Ashok Prashar (since deceased for short, the "patient") consulted the Senior Surgeon Dr. C. J. Desai at Appollo Hospital, Ahmedabad. He was diagnosed as Space Occupying lesion (SOL) in the right lobe of liver and advised treatment by Chemotherapy instead of the major surgery. The patient responded Chemotherapy and the size of SOL reduced from 10 cm to 8 cm within two months. Dr. Desai opined that surgery was out of question for liver SOL, until patient's platelet and WBC counts become normal. On 23/8/2004, the patient approached Dr. A. K. Sethi in Army Hospital and R and R at Delhi (for short, the AHRR), who advised Chemotherapy for 30 days. Thereafter, on 23/11/2004 in the same hospital, patient consulted Dr. Kannan and found that the SOL was static, 8 cm in diametre. He also opined that resection of SOL was risky. Thereafter, for further management, on 7/12/2004 the Patient consulted Dr. M. R. Rajasekhar (Opposite Party No. 2) the senior surgeon in HPB Surgery and Organ Transplant at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi (Opposite Party No. 1). The patient showed prescriptions of three previous consultants, but Opposite Party No. 2 took it casually. The Opposite Party No. 2 advised resection of SOL without proper examination and investigations. He further told that it was a minor operation, and patient will be cured in a couple of days. It was alleged that from the very beginning the Opposite Party No. 2 misled the patient. The patient's wife (Complainant No. 1) was willing not for the operation, but Opposite Party No. 2 managed to brainwash the patient with false promises. On 11/12/2004, CT Scan of whole body was done , it showed SOL of right lobe of liver with adherent gall bladder. The other abdominal organs, chest and pelvis were normal. The Complainant stated that, on 17/12/2004, the patient directly from his office went to Opposite Party No. 1 hospital and got admitted for surgery, without taking any family members. It was alleged that on the same day, he was taken to operation theatre (OT) and without informed consent, the surgery was started at about 6.30 pm and after 8 hours, patient was brought out of OT at 2.30 am, the total duration for the operation was 8 hours. It was alleged that, whole process of resection of SOL was done in surreptitious manner and it was not possible to remove only gall bladder without resection of SOL. It was alleged that Opposite Party No. 2 resected the SOL with gall bladder, but the OT notes (record) were manipulated /forged to create impression as SOL was not resected. The Complainants further alleged that patient bled heavily during operation, therefore, 40 units of blood, plasma, cryoprecipitate and platelets were transfused within span of 24 hrs. After the operation, due to deteriorating condition of patient at 7:00p.m. the patient was put on ventilator by Dr. S. Chawla, Sr. Consultant in Anesthesia. Further, on 19/12/2004 at 5.20 am, the patient suffered heart attack, he was resuscitated. In the morning at 7.40 a.m., Dr. Vipul Rai examined the patient and advised urgent Echocardiograpgy (ECHO), but it was done in the evening at 7.30 p.m. Also, at 6.30 a.m dialysis was advised to correct renal failure, but actually patient was put on dialysis at 6.20 p.m., thus, there was delay of 12 hours to conduct Dialysis and ECHO. As per nurses daily assessment note, the dialysis machine became dysfunctional from 21/12/2004, but dialysis machine became non-functional but the hospital management did not rectify CRRT machine. Unfortunately, the patient died on 22/12/2004 in the Opposite Party No. 1 hospital. It was alleged that the complainant made request for Post Mortem (PM) /autopsy of the deceased but Opposite Parties refused by stating that the hospital was not equipped for PM. Therefore, in the alternative, requested for ultrasound study of deceased but it was also refused by Opposite Parties. The complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Parties for the relevant medical records/documents, but the Opposite Parties deliberately withheld which might have either been destroyed or tempered.

(3.) The Complainants alleged that since SOL of liver was responding to Chemotherapy and the patient had good chance of living a normal life to full span. However, due to callous attitude of the Opposite Party No. 2, unnecessary surgery was performed which shortened life of the patient. The Complainants relied upon one research study done by team of doctors and scientists at New Castle University, wherein alternative to liver transplant was available by use of drug Sulphasalazine to reverse damages. The Complainants further stated in their complaint that the deceased was only bread winner in the family, retired in 1996 from Army service and receiving Rs.14,205.00 per month as pension. Post retirement he was employed in Idea Cellular as a senior manager and receiving Rs.79,818.00 per month. Being aggrieved by the alleged negligence causing the death of patient, his legal heirs filed the Complainant before this Commission and claimed Rs.1,28,25,000.00 as compensation. During course of proceedings the Indian Medical Council (MCI) and Delhi Medical Council (DMC) were impleaded as Opposite Parties Nos. 3 and 4.