GANJAM ASHOK BABU Vs. CARE HOSPITAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Smt. G. Hanumayamma, wife of the complainant, aged about 46 years at the relevant time was admitted in Care Hospital, Hyderabad and was diagnosed to have Hypertrophic Cardio Myopathy obstructive, severe MR LVOT Obstruction and was advised Septal Myomectomy of LVOT and Mitral Valve replacement surgery. After Septal Myomectomy of LVOT and Mitral Valve replacement, she was shifted to ward on fifth post-operative day. She developed Bradycardia and Hypotension on the sixth post-operative day for which she was shifted to ICCU where she was intubated. She developed multiple organ dysfunction requiring regular dialysis support. On 24.07.2014, she developed cardiac arrest for which resuscitation was done but she could not survive and was declared dead on the same day. The cause of her death was diagnosed as cardiac related Bradycardia/Hypotension, leading to multiple organ failure. The surgery on the deceased was performed by OP No.2 Dr. G. Ramasubrahmanyam, OP No.3 Dr. Anuj Kapadia was the Consultant Cardiologist who attended to the patient and OP No.4 Dr. Swapna was the resident doctor on 06.07.2014, in the ward in which the deceased was lodged at that time. Alleging negligence in her treatment, the complainant has approached this Commission by way of this consumer complaint, seeking damages/compensation from the OPs.

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the OPs who have denied the alleged negligence in the treatment of the deceased. I have heard the complainant who appears in person as well as the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(3.) A perusal of the medical record would show that the deceased was advised Glycerin Enema on 5th July. The enema however, was given to her at about midnight on that date. The medical record also shows that though she was conscious and oriented, she had complained of giddiness at about 10:30 pm on that date and her BP was about 90/60. However, she was found sleeping at 11 pm. Enema was given to her at around midnight when she asked for it. It is therefore, obvious that before midnight, either the patient did not feel necessity of enema or she was taking rest. She asked for enema at about midnight on 05.07.2014 and since enema had already been advised to her in the morning, it was given to her. There is no material on record to show that the condition of the patient had in any manner deteriorated after giving enema to her at about midnight on 05.07.2014. Therefore, the OPs cannot be said to be negligent in the treatment of the deceased, by giving enema to her at about midnight on 05.07.2017, though her BP at 10:30 pm was found to be at 90/60 and she had also complained of giddiness. Moreover, the BP cannot be said to be low unless it falls below 90/60 as is stated in the literature submitted by none other than the complainant under the heading "What causes low blood pressure". Her symptoms had subsided by 11 pm when she was found sleeping. More importantly, there is no evidence of her BP having come down on account of enema given to her in the midnight of 05.07.2014. A perusal of the chart filed by the OP would show that her BP was 140/90 at about 6:00 am on 06.07.2014 and prior to that, she was found to be sleeping at about 02:00 am, two hours after taking enema. Since her BP at about 06:00 am, about six hours of taking enema was found to be 140/90, it clearly indicates that giving enema to her at midnight on 05.07.2014 was not an act of negligence and was not contra-indicated in her condition.