SHEELA HIRBA NAIK GAUNEKAR Vs. APOLLO HOSPITALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WIFE of the deceased, Mrs. Sheela Hirba Morto Naik Gaunekar, has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service rendered by the doctors of the Apollo Hospital, Chennai, who carried out the Angioplasty operation, which resulted in death of Mr. Gaunekar on 18.5.1996 in the hospital. It is her say that on 9.4.1996, the deceased was to celebrate his 60th Birthday. However, he was admitted in Goa Medical College, Bambolin, on 1.4.1996 and was kept under observation for 8 days and was discharged on 9.4.1996. During the observation, the doctors advised the deceased to have Angiography at some future date to dispel doubts of possible blockage of blood vessels. He thereafter took appointment from Dr.Mathew and went to Apollo Hospitals, Madras on 9.5.1996. Angiogram was taken on 10.5.1996 and the deceased was advised to have Angioplasty by putting stents. Angioplasty was decided to be done on 14.5.1996 at 9.00 AM. 3. On 14.5.1996, the deceased was given light breakfast and tea at 6.30 AM and was taken to Cathlab at 9.00 AM for Angioplasty. Instead of carrying out Angioplasty, Dr.Vivek Bose came at 12.00 O'clock and assured that Mr.Gaunekar will be taken to Cathlab very soon. However, he was taken only at 4.00 PM in the evening. The complainant was informed at about 6.30 PM by Dr.Vivek Bose that the whole procedure was over and there was no problem in inserting the stents. Thereafter, Mr.Gaunekar was taken to ICCU. 4. It is the say of the complainant that after going to the ICCU, she noticed that the air-conditioner in ICCU was not working and Mr.Gaunekar was restless and perspiring. She, therefore, complained to the doctors. It is her say that in Madras, at the relevant time, temperature was 43oC. She had even complained to the Managing Director's office for this. Thereafter, Dr.Mathew came and informed her that there was nothing to worry as the whole Angioplasty process went on very well and there were no blocks or deposits in the arteries. Therefore, the process took only 20 minutes instead of 30 minutes. 5. It is the say of the complainant that she requested Dr.Vivek Bose that as the air-conditioners were not working in the ICCU, Mr.Gaunekar be shifted to the room on 15th evening, as promised earlier. However, Dr.Vivek informed that Mr.Gaunekar needed to be monitored further for one day more. 6. Mr.Gaunekar was brought to the room on 16th morning. He was having general weakness and the nausea continued. Thereafter, doctors came and saw him and prescribed some medicines. He had hiccoughs throughout the day. On 17th morning also he was having nausea and was given anti-vomitting drug. On that day, in the evening, Dr.Mathews and his team saw the deceased and they informed that he was quite normal and that he would be discharged on the next day morning. She, therefore, paid off the hospital bills as they were supposed to leave the hospital on 18.5.1996 at 9.30 AM. She was informed that general weakness of Mr.Gaunekar would be overcome after he gets his normal food, once he goes home. He was advised to restrict oil, sugar and salt intake. 7. Thereafter, it is her say that the deceased went to sleep on 17.5.96 at about 10 PM and got up at 11.30 PM to go to toilet. She accompanied him to the bathroom but before passing urine he collapsed and she could not control him. She called the nurses and the doctors who picked him up. Thereafter, the deceased was made to walk to his bed. It is her contention that at the relevant time he turned pale, his lips were also pale and rolled his eyes. This was noted by the nurses and the RMO but ECG was not taken. On her insistence, Dr.Vivek Bose came. It is her say that at that juncture it was necessary to shift Mr.Gaunekar to ICCU and to monitor the working of his heart and to carry out the examination of the head and brain which the doctors had neglected to do. 8. In the complaint it is her further say that Mr.Gaunekar was restless and in spite of the air-conditioner he felt warm. Thereafter, at about 1.30 AM he was given sedative treatment and thereby the deceased was snoring loudly but was not normal. At that stage also Dr.Vivek assured her that everything was normal and the deceased would be alright. 9. At about 5.30 AM on 18.5.96, the deceased got up all dazed and asked for the doctor and Dr.Vivek attended on him for 5 minutes. At this juncture also Dr.Mathew did not come. Dr.Vivek asked her to cancel the tickets and informed her that the deceased would be taken to ICCU. On the way to ICCU, Mr.Gaunekar had a Cardiac Arrest. Dr.Vivek informed her that they were trying their best to revive him. Dr.Mathew was called and he came from the airport to the ICCU. Mr.Gaunekar remained unconscious. He had all sorts of life saving gadgets around him but was declared dead at 9.45 AM. 10. In the complaint, a number of deficiencies are mentioned. However, at the time of hearing of this complaint, learned counsel for the complainant had submitted the deficiencies mentioned by the witness Dr.Desai, a Thorasic Surgeon from Goa who gave his opinion on 26.6.2002 and on 18.1.2003 on the basis of the medical record made available to him. These have been grouped by the Complainant as follows: