PRABHA SHANKAR Vs. NARAYANA HRUDAYALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant No.1 is the wife and Complainant No.2 is the minor son of the now deceased K. Shankar who was working for the Indian Railways as an Accounts Asstt. Since he had chest pain, he was admitted to Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore on 9.7.2002 at about 8.00 Aa. m. Thereafter, he was shifted to OP 1 Hospital on the impression that OP 1 Hospital is a well known Hospital for treating heart patients. OP 2 being a heart specialist in OP 1 Hospital, examined the patient; subjected him to ECG (Echocardiogram) and thereafter advised the patient to undergo Angiogram, which was performed on him at about 6.30 p. m. on the same day. Angiogram revealed 2 blocks - one 100% and other 70%. The patient was advised to undergo Angioplasty with stenting after 4 or 5 days. The complainants contend that according to the Doctors at OP Hospital Angioplasty was preferable, when the patient was young when compared to the Coronary Bypass Surgery. It is contended that since the patient came from middle class family, he raised a sum of Rs.2.40 lakh with much difficulty and remitted the same on 10.7.2002 as the cost of intended procedure. The procedure was tentatively scheduled for 15.7.2002. It is further contended that on 11.7.2002, OP 2 preponed the procedure to 12.7.2002 and directed the patient to come to the Hospital at about 7.00 a. m. on 12.7.2002. It is further contended that OP 2 did not elaborate the risk involved in the procedure and only informed the complainant about the positive aspect of Angioplasty. The complainants contend that she gave the consent for the procedure trusting the words of OP 2. It is further contended that OP 2 did not explain as to why the procedure was preponed from 15.7.2002 to 12.7.2002.

(2.) The complainants contend that in the morning of 12.7.2002, the condition of the patient was stable. The patient was taken to the O. T. at around 7.40 p. m. on 12.7.2002. About 2 hours thereafter, OP 2 informed the complainant and her relatives that the Angioplasty was not successful as the Doctors were unable to pierce the 100% block in spite of using 3 wires and thereafter informed that the patient had to go for Coronary Bypass Surgery after a week to remove the Blocks. The complainant was told that the patient would be discharged next day.

(3.) The complainant No.1 contends that she was allowed to see the patient at about 10.00 p. m. in the Critical Care Unit and at that time he was found to be in short of breath and OP 2 was hovering asking the patient how he felt after Angioplasty.