NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 103 OF 1997 Mrs. Sheela Hirba Naik Gaunekar Complainant Versus Apollo Hospitals Ltd., Chennai & Anr. Opposite Parties BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Complainant : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Mohit Choudhary & Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Advocates For the Opp. Party No.1: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate & Ms. A.S. Chandrashekar & Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocates with him. For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Mani Shankar & Mr. Som Mathew, Advocates with him. 13.05.2005 O R D E R
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER
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.
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 Oclock 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.
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
Directors 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :
a.
Non-functioning
of air-conditioner in ICCU leading to restlessness of the patient and the other
complications such as temperature in Madras at the relevant time was 43 degree C.
b.
Delay
in carrying out angioplasty on 14.5.1996 and prolonged starvation of the patient
– its consequences.
c.
Reference
to the sheath removal and application of digital pressure on puncture
side. Not attending to the haematoma at the groin.
d.
Fall
in the bathroom at 11.30 p.m.on 17.5.1996 and not taking
adequate measures at 11.30 p.m. and again at 2.30 a.m. on 18.5.1996 when discharge of the
patient was cancelled.
e.
Patient
collapsing in the lift at 5.30 a.m. on 18.5.1996 while being taken to the
ICCU. And,
f.
Vagueness
in the Death Certificate and Discharge Summary.
Before we proceed to state the
version of the opposite parties, it is necessary to state certain established
facts. Dr. Mathew, Consultant and
Honorary Director, Interventional Cardiology who performed the surgery on the
patient at the Apollo Hospital is not an employee of the Apollo Hospital.
He only uses the facilities of the Apollo Hospital and charges his patients directly. Dr. Vivek Bose, the
Associate Cardiologist is on the payrolls of the Apollo Hospital. At
the relevant time, he was working in the Interventional Cardiology Department
at the Apollo
Hospital with Dr. Mathew, looking after Dr.
Mathews patients during their stay in the hospital, prior to
surgery/procedures, post surgery/ procedures and also used to help Dr. Mathew
during the surgery/procedure.
Dr.
Vivek Bose is an M.D. (Medicine) and D.M.
(Cardiology) and was a gold medalist.
For looking after Dr. Mathews patients he was also paid some amount by
Dr. Mathew. Though the Complainant
raised complaints of delay in performing the angioplasty, and of not attending
to the patient after 3.00 p.m. on 17th May, 1996 against Dr. Mathew, the main thrust of
the arguments of the Complainant is against Dr. Vivek
Bose and the hospital staff for negligence of the post-operative care. However, Dr. Vivek
Bose has not been made a party to the proceedings but was only examined as a
witness.
After
hearing the arguments of both the parties and after a careful consideration of
the evidence on record, our findings on each of the set of the complaints is as
follows :
a.
The
allegation is that the air-conditioner in the ICCU was not working on 14th
May and that this had led to dehydration of the patient and loss of electrolyte
and potassium causing arrhythmia. The
case of both Respondents No. 1 & 2 is that the
air-conditioner was in fact working throughout the daytime on the 14th
and that there was some problem with the air-conditioner in the evening. However, it is also a fact that all the beds
in the ICCU were fully occupied and all the patients were feeling comfortable
and no one complained of lack of air-conditioning. But Mr. Gaunekar was complaining of the
unsatisfactory working of the air-conditioner.
The hospital and Dr. Bose arranged two pedestal fans in addition to the
air-conditioner to make Mr. Gaunekar more comfortable. We find that there is no clinical or medical
evidence regarding the allegation of dehydration or loss of electrolyte and
potassium etc., and that the allegations are without any basis and imaginary.
b.
The
second complaint is that on the 14th, there was considerable delay
in taking Mr. Gaunekar for the Angioplasty procedure and that being a diabetic patient
he might have developed hypo-glycemia because of the
delay. Once again we find that no
medical evidence was led to show that Mr. Gaunekar developed or shown at any
stage, any signs of hypo or hyper-glycemia and ketoacidosis and that these allegations once again are without
any basis. Dr. Mathew was fully aware
and conscious of the fact that Mr. Gaunekar is a chronic diabetic patient and
also is hypertensive. The patient was
asked to take light breakfast at around 6.30 a.m. on 14.5.1996 and to be on the call
for Angioplasty. There is enough
evidence on record to show that no specific time was fixed for the Angioplasty
and in fact all records show that the patient was to be on call for Angioplasty
on 14.5.1996. The Nurses Chart dated
13.5.1996 clearly states posted for PTCA tomorrow on call. Dr. Mathew stated in his affidavit that he
expected to take the patient for the operation around noon but as the earlier Angioplasty took more
time than expected the procedure for Mr. Gaunekar was delayed. On his instructions Dr. Vivek
Bose informed the patient of the delay and advised him to have fruit juice or
light lunch which the deceased did. The
Complainant herself admits that Dr. Bose met the patient at 12 noon. Investigations
to detect the blood sugar level for hypo or hyper-glycemia
were conducted at 12 noon and found to be within acceptable limits. He was shifted to Cath
lab at 2.20 p.m. and the angioplasty was performed. The procedure was completed successfully and
the patient was received back in the ICCU at 4.50 p.m.
The clinching argument advanced by Dr. Mathew is that fasting for upto 10-12 hours prior to surgery/procedure does not lead
to the occurrence of diabetic Ketoacidosis (Hypoglycemia)
or electrolyte imbalance even in the diabetic patient, and in this, Dr. Mathew is
supported by the expert opinion of Dr. Kerkar. Otherwise, all diabetic patients could
develop hypoglycemia every morning when they wake up. We, therefore, see no
force in the allegation of delay in conducting Angioplasty.
c.
The Angioplasty
procedure was conducted through a puncture in the groin. To avoid bleeding from this puncture an arterial
sheath was applied at the groin. Dr. Vivek Bose who removed the arterial sheath took longer time
than usual to get proper homeostasis so the patient was not allowed to move
till the puncture site is fully healed.
Because of the patients history of hypertension Dr. Mathew and Dr. Bose
took the decision to keep him in the ICCU for an extra 12 hours in his own
interest. The allegation that Mr.
Gaunekar suffered an extra 12 hours in the ICCU without air-conditioning has no
valid basis.
Another complaint is that it
took Dr. Bose three hours to obtain full Homeostasis and that there was oozing of
blood from the puncture site and that the Doctors should have considered
surgical stitches or blood transfusion and they did not even obtain the opinion
of a Cardiovascular Surgeon. Dr. Bose
mentioned that he had followed the standard procedure and that six hours after
the Angioplasty, he removed the arterial sheath himself and gave digital
compression (i.e. with hand) till proper homeostasis was obtained. He stated that he waited for three hours to
obtain full homeostasis and tightly bandaged the groin. When proper homeostasis obtained, a small hematoma was noticed which was within acceptable
limits. There was no bleeding and
digital pressure compression to stop bleeding after sheath removal is a
standard procedure all over the world.
The small hematoma observed is again a normal
phenomenon after sheath removal and was within the acceptable limits. Since there was no bleeding, there is no need
to have surgical stitches or blood transfusion.
The bleeding and clotting time were also measured and found to be normal
and there was no need to consult a Cardio-Vascular Surgeon. In addition, Dr. Mathew has stated that he,
his team and the nurses inspected the groin puncture site on the 15th,
16th and 17th May and found that everything was within
normal limits. Therefore, there is no
evidence to show any deficiency in service regarding sheath removal and groin
care. We find that none of these
averments of the opposite parties were challenged with any appropriate medical
evidence to the contrary. The allegation
is therefore without any medical evidence or proof.
d.
The
main emphasis of the Complainant has been on point D. It is alleged that at 3.00 p.m. on 17.5.1996, Dr. Mathew, the Cardiac
Surgeon attending on the patient, saw the patient and advised that he should be
discharged. The Complainant cleared the
hospital bills and made arrangements to leave the hospital at 9.30 on the next
morning i.e. on the 18th. Accordingly,
tickets for going back to their home town Goa were also arranged. However, it is alleged that the patient slept
at 10.00 p.m.
on 17th night but got up at 11.30 p.m. for urination. The Complainant accompanied the patient to
the bathroom and it is alleged that the patient fell down in the bathroom. The attending nurse, who was summoned, helped
him to get up and after passing urine he was made to walk to his bed. The Resident Doctor, Dr. Bhaskar
Rao examined the patient. The artery which was punctured was bleeding
and there was hematoma at the wound. It is alleged that the Doctor concentrated on
the wound and did not pay attention to the patients general condition or tried
to find out why he collapsed.
Thereafter, the patient was
restless and hence Dr. Vivek Bose was summoned at
about 2.30 in the early morning hours of 18.5.1996. Dr. Vivek Bose then
decided at 2.45 a.m. that the orders for the patients discharge should
be cancelled and further instructed that the patient should be given sedation. Thereafter at 5.30 in the morning when he was
being taken to the ICCU, he developed cardiac arrest in the lift and in spite
of various efforts made to revive him he died at about 9.15 a.m.
Dr. Desai who had been examined as witness of the Complainant had stated
that six hours between 11.30 p.m. on 17th to 5.30 next morning
on 18th was a very crucial period and that the patient should have
been shifted to ICCU immediately at 11.30 p.m. when he complained of giddiness. The
Operating Surgeon, Dr. Mathew should have been informed of the patients
condition which was not done. Dr. Mathew
was to address a Medical Conference at Pune on the
next day, i.e., 18.5.1996 and when he was at the airport, he was informed only
at 6.00 a.m.
on 18th about the patients condition and he rushed back to the
patient. The argument is that between 3.00 p.m. on 17th when Dr. Mathew
ordered the discharge and 6.30 a.m. on the next morning on 18th Dr. Mathew was not kept informed of the
patients condition. It is also argued
that after 11.30 p.m. on 17th , opinion
of the Cardio- Vascular Surgeon should have been obtained about the Hematoma in the groin and an ultrasound examination should
have been done to see if there is any blood collection in the deeper
tissues. Similarly, a C.T. scan should
have been done at that stage and the opinion of Neurosurgeon should have been
obtained to know the reasons for the giddiness and fall of the patient in the
bathroom. He should have been
immediately shifted to the ICCU and various tests like Haemoglobin,
ECG, Blood Sugar, Blood Urea, Cerium Critemin, Serium Electrolyze, Acid base estimation should have been
done at that stage. The failure to do all
the above, it is argued, amounts to negligence.
The thrust of the complaint is
that Dr. Vivek Bose joined Apollo Hospital only in January 1996, and that he was not
very experienced and that he was negligent in not informing Dr. Mathew between 11.30 p.m. on 17th and 5.30 a.m. on 18th. It is argued on behalf of the Respondents
that Dr. Bose is a well qualified and experienced Doctor having obtained MD
(Medicine) and DM (Cardiology) and that in addition to the Resident Doctors,
Dr. Bose himself attended to the patient very promptly at various points of
time in the night of 17th at 2.30 a.m. and 5.30 a.m.(on 18th).
It is argued that the patient did not fall down in the bathroom at 11.30 p.m.
However, on behalf of the Complainants, it is argued that the words
fell down have been scored off from the medical records. Dr. Bose averred that as far as his knowledge
goes the patient did not fall down and he was informed by Dr. Bhaskar Rao that the patient felt
giddy. But there was no rebuttal of the version of the Complainant that the
words fell down have been struck off from the record. We therefore believe in the version of the
Complainant. Dr. Bose as well as Dr.
Mathew have argued that the cause for the giddiness
was the pain in the groin and subsequent vasovagal
syndrome from which the patient recovered immediately and that all his clinical
parameters were normal even at 5.30 a.m. when the patient suffered cardiac arrest
in the lift while being transferred to the ICCU. We find that although Dr. Bose averred that
he was fully competent to handle independently the post-operative care of the patient
and that he did not feel the need to inform seniors, we find his experience is
actually limited to few months in this field.
We would revert to this in more detail in a latter paragraph but we
would like to state that no evidence is available to show that the events
during the night of 17th/18th May have led to the death
of the patient.
e.
Dr.
Bose in his deposition stated that at about 5.20 a.m., the attending nurse informed him that
the patient was restless. That at 5.30 a.m., Dr. Bose again saw the patient and found
him to be restless though his vital signs were normal. He decided to shift the patient to the ICCU
for monitoring as an abundant caution, though the Complainant objected to
shifting the patient to the ICCU as the air-conditioning there was not allegedly
satisfactory. Unfortunately the patient
had a pulmonary cardiac arrest in the lift while on the way to the ICCU. He was revived with cardio pulmonary
resuscitation measures. He was incubated
and put on 100% oxygen and ventilated in the ICCU. At the time of receiving in the ICCU, Registrar
found that the patient had signs of irreversible brain damage like not
responding to painful stimuli and with pupils dilated and not reacting and was unconscious. By this time Dr. Mathew rushed back to the
patient and administered to life saving measures. After cardio pulmonary resuscitation the
Doctors were able to get the cardiac rhythm back and with heavy doses of drugs
were able to prop up blood pressure for sometime. However, in spite of their best efforts, the
patient remained unstable and ultimately declared dead at 9.45 a.m.
Dr. Mathew stated that even after the unfortunate death of the patient,
the Complainant was fully appreciative of the herculean
efforts made by Dr. Mathew and his team to save the patient. In fact, the Complainant paid the fees of Dr.
Mathew five days after the death, though Dr. Mathew himself was reluctant to
accept the payment. He therefore argues
that the Complainant was fully satisfied with the treatment in the hospital,
and never complained about any part of the treatment in the hospital, except
for the complaint about the unsatisfactory working of the air-conditioner in
the ICCU. It is argued that the
complaint filed one year after the operation, was an afterthought. It is further argued that the death of the
patient after three days of the operation was only because of cardiac arrest
which could not be predicted.
We agree with the arguments of
the opponents and hold that there was no negligence in treatment of the patient
after 5.20 p.m.
on 18th.
f.
Regarding
the vagueness of the death certificate, it is argued by the Complainant that
the cause of death is given as CerebroVascular/Accident/Diabetes/Mellitus/Hypertension/Coronary
Artery disease/Rest PTCA status. It is
argued that diabetes, hypertension and coronary
artery disease are diseases that can afflict a patient and cannot be the exact
causes of the death. Similarly the
mention of Rest PTCA (Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty, meaning that the patient
has undergone an Angioplasty) cannot be the cause of death and it is therefore
alleged that death certificate is deficient.
Opposite party No.1 has argued
that it is the standard practice of the Apollo Hospital to list all diseases in the death
certificate. It is further averred that
in addition to the death certificate, a death summary was prepared by Dr. Bose
which clearly showed that death was due to Cardiac arrest leading to
irreversible brain damage and hence described as due to Cerebral-Vascular
Accident. It is further argued that the
brother of the Complainant is a senior police officer and he was present when
the death took place and neither he nor the Complainant asked for a post-mortem. We do not think that the Doctors at the Apollo Hospital made an effort to mislead or misrepresent
the cause of death.
We therefore hold the
Complainant has not made out a case against the opposite parties in this regard.
We would now examine the
quality of the post-operative service especially in the light of the incidents
on the night of 17th/ 18th May 1996. In the
treatment of a patient coming in for a surgical procedure, the post-operative
care is as important as the care that has to be attached to the surgical
procedure itself. While we have stated
that the surgery seems to have proceeded well, we find that adequate attention
has not been given to the post-operative care.
36 hours after the surgery, the patient was brought from the ICCU to his
room on the 16th morning. It
is admitted that sometime before 2.00 p.m. on the 16th, the patient had
vomiting. It is also admitted that at 2.00 p.m. the blood pressure was 190/90 and the
pulse was 96. It is again admitted that
the patient developed severe rigor at 7.45 a.m. on the 17th. The record again show that at 11.30 p.m. on
the night of 17.5.1996, the patient fell down in the bathroom when he went for
urination, though the words fell down have been struck off from the hospital
record. All these indicate that the
patient has not really stabilized after the operation. However, at 11.30 p.m., it was only a junior Resident, Dr. Bhaskar Rao who attended on the
patient and gave a clinical diagnosis that the patient developed Vaso Vagal Symcope
secondary to groin pain. No pathological
tests were however carried out between 11.30 p.m. on the 17th and 2.30 a.m. on
the18th when Dr. Vivek Bose saw the
patient. During this period the only
medicines given were analgesics for reducing pain and for inducing sleep.
When Dr. Bose saw the patient
at 2.30 a.m.
on the 18th, the only thing he did was again a clinical examination
on the basis of which he says he confirmed the diagnosis of Vaso
Vagal Symcope. At 2.45 a.m. Dr. Bose says that he ordered that the
discharge of the patient slated for 9.30 a.m. on the 18th should be
cancelled. Obviously, Dr. Bose felt
concerned about the patients condition.
Otherwise he would not have ordered cancellation of discharge of the
patient on his own authority by modifying the discharge order of his boss (Dr.
Mathew) and even though it meant cancellation of air travel reservation made
earlier with some difficulty. But he did
not deem it necessary to shift the patient to ICCU at that stage. He did order tests for blood parameters and
an ECG. But none of these were in fact
carried out till 5.20 a.m. on the ground that the patient was fast asleep. However, Dr. Bose himself admitted that when
he saw the patient at 2.30 a.m. the patient was awake and talked to him. Even during the period 11.30 p.m. on 17th and 2.30 a.m. on 18th there was ample time
when an ECG could have been taken without disturbing the sleep of the patient,
but none of the Doctors thought of an ECG at that time. Dr. Bose also admitted that he did not order
a C.T. scan and ultrasonography, but justifies on the
ground that there was no corresponding clinical examination.
But as pointed out above, the
patient was neither stable nor normal.
At 5.20 a.m. Dr. Bose was summoned by the nurses as the patient
was complaining of restlessness. It is
at that stage Dr. Bose decided to shift him to the ICCU. However, before he could be reached to the
ICCU, the patient had a cardiac arrest in the lift. We do therefore hold that there has been
certain amount of negligence and apparent deficiency in service in the post-operative
care of the patient during the night of 17th/18th 1996.
One does not expect or countenance such type of deficiency from a super
specialty hospital like the Apollo.
The next question that
requires consideration is whether this deficiency in the post-operative care
has caused death of the patient or to what extent it contributed to the
death. For either of these purposes
there is no evidence on record. The
apparent cause of death is the cardiac arrest suffered by the patient. A cardiac arrest can happen suddenly and in
an unforeseen manner. It is therefore
not possible to give a finding as to whether the above narrated negligence in
post-operative care has to what extent contributed to the death of the
patient. A postmortem examination could
perhaps have shown the factor leading to the death of the patient. However, as brought out earlier, no
post-mortem was insisted upon by the Complainant or the relatives of the
deceased. In fact, brother-in-law of the
deceased who was a high ranking police officer was present at that time and
even he did not ask for the post-mortem examination.
Considering the fact that the
deceased was diabetic, alcoholic and having hypertension, it would be difficult
to arrive at the conclusion that the aforesaid deficiency in service by the
hospital alone has resulted in the death of the patient. However, the fact remains that there has been
some negligence in the post-operative care and the hospital staff should have
shown more alertness and urgency in looking after the patient during the
crucial time on 17th/18th when patient was complaining on
various counts such as giddiness and restlessness. Although worried Complainant brought all
these factors to their notice and O.Ps.s have
themselves had concern to stop the discharge of the patient for the next day,
then why did they take post-operative treatment of the patient lightly? Mere couple of rounds of Doctors doing
clinical examination without doing crucial tests such as ECG does not show
vigilance and alertness from the opposite party which is known to be one of the
premier Institutions.
From the aforesaid discussion
it can be held that even though Angioplasty was successfully carried out on
14.5.96 there was deficiency in service in post-operative
treatment particularly on 17th /18th. Apart from operation, post-operative
treatment is equally important in such surgeries because complications may
arise at any point of time. For treating
such complications alertness on the part of the resident doctors/nursing staff
is must. If that is not done, it would
be a deficiency in service by the hospital.
In the present case the patient had giddiness; had fallen in the
bathroom; was restless and had nausea.
These indications ought to have made the doctors and the staff alert at
least for examination by ECG. That was
not done on a pretext that the deceased was fast asleep.
Therefore, for the deficiencies brought out
above, we allow the complaint in part and direct opposite party No.1, Apollo Hospital to pay a nominal amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the Complainant with interest at
6% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment and Rs.10,000/-
costs within four weeks of the receipt of this order.
.J
(M.B. SHAH)
PRESIDENT
..
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)
MEMBER
P
