BHARAT AHUJA Vs. METRO HEART INSTITUTE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Dev Nath Ahuja, aged about 72 years, (since deceased), (hereinafter referred as 'the patient'), was admitted to M/s Escorts Hospital, Faridabad, on 3.1.2002 and discharged on 4.1.2002, with the diagnosis of acute anterior wall myocardial Infarction (MI). Then, again he was admitted on the same day, in M/s Escort Hospital and Research Centre Limited (EHIRC), New Delhi. His coronary angiography was performed there, on 8.1.2002. It was reported that as patient was suffering from triple vessel disease with moderate LV Dysfunction, Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery [CABG] was advised. It was fixed for 30.1.2002, which was to be performed under the care of Dr. Naresh Trehan and Dr. S. Bhandari, EHIRC at New Delhi, [ext.C-1/16 to C-1/27]. Patient was discharged on 14.1.2002, on request. Again, on 16.1.2002, the patient suffered discomfort; he was taken to EHIRC at Faridabad, admitted in Cardiology CCU. He was discharged on 18.1.2002 and referred to EHIRC at New Delhi for CABG. In the meantime, Dr. S. S. Bansal, working with Escorts Hospital, Faridabad, advised and persuaded the complainant to take his father to Metro Heart Institute, OP 1 for the satisfactory treatment. On the basis of advice and persuasion of Dr. S. S. Bansal, the complainant admitted his father at OP 1, on 18.1.2002. On the next day, i.e. on 19.1.2002, the OPs 2 to 4 performed multi vessel Percutaneous Transluminal Balloon Angioplasty (hereinafter referred as 'PTCA') with primary stenting of LAD and LCX. Only two stents were installed. The patient was discharged, on 25.1.2002. Prior to operation, the OPs 2 to 4 have not conducted any tests, but relied on the test reports of Escorts Hospital, which were previously conducted. As, there was no emergency for PTCA, the OPs could have waited for CABG, till 30.1.2002.Hence, it was alleged that, it was a malafide intention of OPs to grab a client to earn heavy amount. Thus, it was an unfair trade practice and greedy attitude of OPs. The OP intentionally avoided the scheduled CABG operation, which was recommended by Dr. Naresh Trehan, on 30.1.2002. Dr. Purushottam, OP 2, along with OP 4, have not properly assessed the coronary angiography report done at Escorts, on 8.1.2002.The patient was charged with a bill of Rs.1,65,000/-. After discharge, again on 6.2.2002, the patient suffered severe chest pain, chocking and congestion. Therefore, he was taken to Escort Hospital at Faridabad as it was near to the complainant's house. The patient was discharged on 7.2.2002. The complainant enquired with the OP/doctor about the said episode. The OP called the patient to Metro Hospital and coronary angiography was performed again, upon which, OP's suggested "nothing to worry". The patient was discharged on 9.2.2002. Again, the patient suffered chest pain with other symptoms on 14.3.2002, he was taken to Sunflag Hospital at Faridabad, which is the branch of OP-1. He was admitted in CCU and was discharged on 16.3.2002. Again, the patient suffered the same, on 23.3.2002, again, PCTA was performed. The patient subsequently died, on 26.3.2002. Therefore, alleging negligence on the part of OPs 1 to 4, the complainant Mr.Bharat Ahuja son of deceased filed a complaint before this Commission, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on 28.08.2002, and prayed for total compensation of Rs.25 lakhs.

(2.) The opposite party filed its written version and submitted that the patient was a chronic smoker with lung problem, had brain stroke (CVA) in 1995. He had previous heart attacks with recurrent left ventricular failure and cardiac arrhythmia. On 4.1.2002, he suffered MI and was admitted to Escorts at Delhi. The echo revealed, clot in left ventricle, he had another heart attack with LVF and cardiac arrhythmia, on 16.01.2002, for which, he was admitted to Escorts, Faridabad. He was discharged on 18.01.2002 with advice to go to Escort, New Delhi for CABG, but, however, a day earlier, his son/complainant visited the OP-Metro Hospital and discussed the alternatives of bypass surgery. Therefore, the OP considering the multiple health problems of the patient and due to inherent risk involved in the surgery, advised angioplasty as a better option. Thereafter only, the patient got admitted at OP-Hospital on 18.01.2002. After informed consent, OP 2 performed angioplasty on two major offending arteries. The patient improved and was discharged on 25.01.2002 in a stable condition. On 06.02.2002, he was re-admitted to Escorts, Faridabad, in acute LVF. He got discharged from there, on 07.02.2002 against medical advice (LAMA). On the same day, he was admitted to Metro Hospital, in view of the recurrent chest pain and breathlessness. Therefore, check coronary angiography was performed, which revealed patent stent, no abnormality. He was given proper medication and was discharged in a stable condition. Thereafter, the patient, again had episode of chest discomfort and breathlessness. Therefore, angioplasty of remaining non-dominant RCA was performed on 22.03.2002. He was doing well for three days. Thereafter, the condition suddenly deteriorated and the patient passed away, on 26.03.2002, due to LVF and cardiac arrhythmia i.e. cardiogenic shock.

(3.) The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that, the doctors at OP-1 had intentionally influenced the complainant. Therefore, the patient was taken to OP-hospital. CABG was advised by Escorts, but the OP intentionally performed angioplasty to grab money. The patient could have survived by the CABG surgery. The angioplasty was also not performed perfectly with due care and attention; OP misguided the patient and the complainant. The facilities at OP-hospital were not satisfactory. OP has unnecessarily put excessive charges for the angioplasty package. The counsel further mentioned that Dr. Bansal had been appointed by OP 1 as a Director, after leaving his job with Escorts, Faridabad. Therefore, the complainant suffered heavy financial expenses and mental agony. The counsel relied upon the authority of this Commission in Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Sharma Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors., CC No.104 of 2002, decided on 22 April, 2015.