SAFDARJUNG HOSPITAL AND VMMC Vs. ASHA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') is directed against the order dtd. 14/5/2019 in CC no. 1860 of 2017 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission') allowing the complaint and directing the respondent herein to pay Rs.25.00 lakh as compensation with Rs.50,000.00 as litigation cost.

(2.) The impugned order is challenged on the grounds that the State Commission has erred in arriving at the finding of medical negligence on the part of the appellant without obtaining an independent/ expert opinion in the absence of any proof to establish that the treatment provided was contrary to the medical protocol. It has also been challenged on the ground that the past medical history of the patient had not been produced by the respondent before the State Commission. It is contended that the respondent's husband (the deceased patient) was suffering from COPD, Lower Respiratory tract infection, cardiomyopathy with a very poor heart function with leaking heart valves at the time of admission in the hospital of the appellant no.1 on 12/1/2017 vide Registration no. 7766. According to the appellant the deceased patient was admitted in the CCU Unit II under the supervision of appellant nos.1 and 3 and was diagnosed as a case of CAD, COPD, Global LV Hypokinesia, moderate Mitral/ Tricuspid regurgitation, EF 15-20 with left ventricular failure. The patient is stated to have been brought to the appellant's hospital after treatment of 7 days in a private hospital for pneumonia and was a known case of dilated Cardiomyopathy who had eluded all treatment against doctor's advice for the past two years. Tests, including 2D Echo, were done in the hospital and the family members were apprised of the seriousness of the illness. HRCT Chest finding suggested severely damaged lungs. The Appellant submits that the deceased patient's heart was working at only 1/6th capacity and that his Ejection Fraction (EF) was 15%, and in view of the leaking valve, the effective ejection fraction was less than 10%. According to the appellant, the patient was treated as per the standard guidelines and the proof of the same was improvement in condition as also admitted by the respondent in the complaint before the State Commission. However, the patient became unconscious due to cardiac arrest as a result of Ventricular Tachycardia with hemodynamic collapse which, according to the appellant, is a common cause of sudden death in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. It is stated that the doctor on duty provided cardiopulmonary resuscitation and certain injections. However, the patient could not be reviewed.

(3.) The respondent has alleged medical negligence on part of the appellants approached the State Commission with the prayer to: