MAX SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL Vs. SHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed 'under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in challenge to the Order dtd. 27/2/2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter to be referred to as 'State Commission') in complaint No. 18 of 2016 whereby the complaint was allowed.

(2.) The relevant brief facts of the case are that on 11/8/2014, the complainant's wife, Smt. Salwinder Kaur, (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient') feeling pain in her knees from 06 months, visited the hospital and the doctor after check-up told the complainant that the patient had advanced osteoarthritis of both the knees and suggested surgery for replacement of both the knees and placing a rod in the right leg of the patient. It is informed by the doctor that as both knees of the patient were in advanced stage of Osteoarthrities, it was mandatory for them to get Bilateral Total Knee Replacement. Following the advice given by the doctor, the complainant got the patient admitted in the hospital. The pre-operative tests were conducted on the patient. It is alleged that on 19/8/2014, Dr. Amit Gupta conducted Echo Test upon the patient and as per the report, left ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) was recorded to be 35% and as per the medical jurisprudence, the doctors are not supposed to conduct Knee Replacement Surgery of a patient with 35% LVEF otherwise the surgery could be fatal for the patient. Despite this fact, the doctors got conducted 2D Color and Doppler Echoardiography test on the same day, which shows LVEF = 60%, which is medically impossible and is wrong being manipulated / doctored by the doctors in order to conduct the surgery against the health condition of the patient. It is alleged that on 20/8/2014, the Bilateral Total Knee Replacement of the patient was conducted. It is further alleged that the X-ray knees and X-ray Chest PA/AP was conducted on 19/8/2014 and the report was given by Dr. Monica Chhabra and Dr. Ambreen Jyot Sidhu on 21/8/2014 and 22/8/2014, respectively whereas the surgery was conducted one day before i.e. on 20/8/2014 even without perusing the X-ray reports of the knees and chest of the patient by the doctors. It is alleged that X-ray of chest AP view report of the patient shows Cardiomegaly, a state where Cardiac of the deceased was shown as enlarged. It is alleged that on 23/8/2014 when the condition of the patient was deteriorating, she was shifted to ICU and then on 25/8/2014 to SICU and the patient was kept on ventilator in SICU till 8/9/2014. On 9/9/2014, the doctor referred the patient to Cardio Dr. Sudheer Saxena in CCU and Angiography was done and the report came out to be normal but patient's condition was worsening day by day. On 10/9/2014, Dr. Saxena conducted angiography test and the report came out to be normal, therefore, the patient was discharged despite her critical condition. It is alleged that on 11/9/2014 the condition of the patient became very critical at home and the family of the complainant called Max Hospital Ambulance and took the patient to the doctor in an emergency but the doctor refused to admit the patient back and then the patient was taken to Fortis Hospital, which also refused to admit the patient. Thereafter, the complainant took the patient to SGHS Hospital, Sohana where the patient was admitted in ICU and remained there till 23/9/2014 and on 24/9/2014 she was put on ventilator and unfortunately, on 1/10/2014, the patient died.

(3.) The hospital and doctors contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint. And that the Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mohali is a tertiary Care Hospital, engaged in providing state of art service in a very transparent and compassionate manner. It is also stated that all the pre-operative tests were conducted and after fully confirming that the patient is fit to undergo surgery, clearance for conducting surgery was given by the concerned doctor of the hospital. It is also stated that the contention of the complainant that LVEF was only 35% is totally incorrect as 2D Colour and Doppler Echo done on 19/8/2014 clearly shows that the LVEF of the patient was more than 60% which was within the normal parameters. It was further stated that the patient was not having any complaints of breathlessness or chests pain and there is no medical negligence on the part of the hospital and the doctor and the senior cardiologist and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.