State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neera Arya vs Batra Hospital & Medical Research on 31 May, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 31.05.2013 Case No. C-71/2006 1. SMT. NEERA ARYA - COMPLAINANTS W/o Late Sh. Harish Arya 2. Shri Sumit Arya S/o Late Sh. Harish Arya 3. Miss Priyanka Arya D/o Late Sh. Harish Arya All residents of C-26, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065. Versus 1. BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH -OPPOSITE PARTIES CENTRE OFR CH. AISHI RAM BATRA PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST (THROUGH ITS CHIEF TRUSTEE) 2. DR. SANJEEVG SHARMA, CARDIOLOGIST 3. DR. R.D. YADAVE,CARDIOLOGIST 4. DR. (MRS.) M. SHARMA, MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT 5. The Officer-in-charge Record/Record Keeper All At:Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre of Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Public Charitable Trust 1, Tulghlakabad Institutional Area, Mehrauli Bdarpur Road, New Delhi 110062. 6. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi. CORAM : V.K. GUPTA - MEMBER (JUDICIAL) S.C. JAIN - MEMBER
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
V.K. GUPTA (ORAL)
1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Briefly stated the factual scenario is that the deceased Sh. Harish Arya was about 50 years of age on 20.5.2004. He was admitted in the Hospital of the OP-1 at about 6.30 a.m., but unfortunately died on 20.5.04 itself on the operation table in the Cath Lab of OP-1 at about 1 p.m. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and Dr. R.D. Yadav, OP-2 & OP-3 were the attending doctors. OP-4 & OP-5 are the Directors of OP-1.
3. That the deceased had no prior history of any heart ailment. However, on 20.5.04 the deceased Sh. Harish Arya came to Dr. Ashok Arya at about 5.30 a.m. and the deceased complained of slight discomfort in the chest. Dr. Ashok Arya checked him up and it was found that the Blood Pressure was 140/90. Further, Dr. Ashok Arya gave some emergency treatment and he informed Dr. Diliip Chugh to bring the ECG equipment. Dr. Chug immediately came and conducted ECG on the deceased at about 6.05 a.m. Finding further treatment, Dr. Chug on telephone informed Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, OP-2, a Cardiologist and Dr. Sanjeev Sharma advised that the deceased should be taken to OP-1. Therefore, the deceased was admitted in the Hospital i.e. OP-1 at about 6.30 a.m. and at about 6.40 a.m., another ECG of the deceased was taken in the Cardiac Causality by the Resident Doctor. However, Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, OP-2 without examining the patient and without looking at the two ECG reports, in a most negligence manner advised the Resident Doctor on the phone itself to shift the deceased to Cath Lab A for angiography. Angiography is a medical procedure whereby certain sensors are inserted into the arteries of the patient to find out if there is any blockage in the arteries and if so, where. The procedure is of the nature of a test and the result of the procedure is seen on the computer monitor. The computer records and saves the result of the procedure.
However, the said procedure was not necessary on such urgent basis that it had to be ordered to be carried out by the OP-2 without even examining the patient himself and more so for the reason that no one hand the Resident Doctor had declared that condition of the deceased was stable and on the other hand it was advised to be taken to the Cath Lab A. The Blood Pressure of the patient immediately on the arrival at the Hospital was 130/90. It was also recorded that there was no change in the Blood Pressure before shifting the patient to the Cath Lab. However, the ECG of the patient clearly indicated the problem. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, OP-2 did not reach the Hospital, however, based on the telephonic discussion, which he had with Dr. R.D. Yadav, OP-3, OP-3 had started the process of Angiography. Dr. R.D. Yadav, OP-3 had made no effort to look at the two ECG reports that were found lying outside by Dr. Ashok Arya. Dr. R.D. Yadav, OP-3 did not carry out the customary physical examination of the patient to find out the condition of the patient and moreover there is no such record or document that such efforts were made. Dr. R.D. Yadav should have made a noting on the medical sheets of the Hospital, which was not done. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, OP-2 had arrived at the Hospital at 7.20 a.m. He compared the two ECGs which were available and informed Dr. Ashok Arya that second ECG showed slight improvement. In the noting sheet bearing No. 006, a fabrication was prepared much later and in an effort to cover up the goof up and the negligence of the OPs. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, OP-2 mentioned date of arrival of the patient at OP-1 Hospital on 19.5.04 at 7 a.m., which is totally contrary to the facts of the case. The ECG at the hospital was done at 6.40 a.m. and BP was recorded as only 90 pointing to the higher side and no record on the lower side. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, OP-2 without making any discussion has wrongly noted After discussion on the attendants, patient was taken for Angioplasty. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, OP-2 joined Dr. R.D. Yadav, OP-3, in the Cath Lab A and before that Dr. R.D. Yadav had already completed the Angiography and he was on his way carrying out the Angioplasty. It was informed that left coronary artery i.e. LAD was 100% blockage and the patient was to be given one stent. Dr. R.D. Yadave very negligently took the mobile in the Cath lab and was talking with the family members. At no point of time Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and Dr. R.D. Yadav had conveyed to the attendants of the deceased that there was anything wrong in the right coronary artery of the patient. There was a casual approach and also for greed of money on the part of OP-2 & OP-3 and angioplasty on right coronary artery was done by Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and Dr. R.D. Yadav in a very rush and negligent manner and they failed to take reasonable standard of care expected of them. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma & Dr. R.D. Yadav informed the attendants of the deceased that the deceased has felt some discomfort in the morning of 20.5.04 was due to the alleged 100% blockage in the left coronary artery as seen by them during angiography. It was very wrong in the part of OP-2 & OP-3 as to what prompted them to done angioplasty on the right coronary artery, which was not at all necessary. The Angioplasty was carried out at the bifurcation of the right coronary artery.
Such procedure is a very specialized job and required sufficient consideration before it is carried out.
At about 9.20 a.m., OP-2, Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and OP-3, Dr. R.D. Yadav, came out of Cath Lab A and informed the attendants of the deceased that the process was successfully completed and the patient was fine. It was also informed that they had put one stent in LAD and one stent in PDA and carried out ballooning of Right Ventral Branch. And the patient was shifted to the recovery room attached to Cath lab-B far away from Cath Lab-A. The son of the deceased informed the brother of the deceased at 10.22 a.m. that the deceased was again shifted to Cath Lab B and Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and Dr. R.D. Yadav were going to operate the patient again. At about 11.30 a.m., staff at Cath lab B gave a requisition form to the son of the deceased for two units of the blood to be brought from OP-1s own blood bank. The Blood Group of the deceased was O+, which is not a rare group and the blood was not available in the hospital and it was directed to the attendants of the deceased to take the blood from outside agency. When blood bank of the Hospital refused to provide the blood, Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, and Dr. R.,D. Yadav stated that it was no longer required. It is not known what prompted the OP-2 & 3 to ask for blood in the first place, which is another ploy. The angioplasty on the right coronary artery was not at all necessary and the first operation when one stent was put in the said artery was an utter failure and only because of the rash, causal and negligent attitude of Dr. Sanjeev Sharma,OP-2 & Dr. R.D. Yadav, OP-3. The second operation further shows sheer incompetence of these two Doctors. On account of the sheer negligence of these two Doctors, Sh. Harish Arya, the patient died and the Hospital refused to hand over the body unless the entire payment is made. The Hospital i.e. OP-1 was required to maintain record of the patient admitted in the hospital and to provide the same either free or on payment to the patient and/or relatives. In this Hospital, most of the important medical record was created under the computer images which was conducted by Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and Dr. R.D. Yadav. The procedure having taking place in two Cath Labs, the record of first procedure was recorded on the computer of Cath lab A and the second procedure on the computer in Cath lab B and the said record was required to be copied from the Hard Disk of the computers on the CDs which should be given to the relatives of the patient. In this case, despite the request made by the complainants, the Hospital refused to give the documents, record and death summary of the patient. Even CD of the patient was also not provided. There is sheer negligence on the part of the Hospital as well as these two doctors and the complainants claim a compensation of Rs. 48 Lacs, Rs. 20 Lacs towards loss of company, Rs. 20 Lacs towards loss of affection of the father of the children and Rs. 3 Lacs for mental agony and sheet sufferings.
4. All the OPs have filed the written statements and denied the entire allegations. The complainant have suppressed the material facts to the extent of not disclosing the opinion of Medical Board constituted by the order of Honble Court of Sh. Brijesh Garg in criminal complaint filed by Dr. Ashok Arya (Brother of deceased) in Patiala House Court. On the request of the Metropolitan Magistrate, three members High Power Medical Board was constituted which after a careful study of the record has given its opinion on 12.2.05 and very specifically and categorically found that there has been no apparent medical negligence in the treatment of deceased Sh. Harish Arya. The said medical report was filed in the criminal courts. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and Dr. R.D. Yadave are highly qualified doctors with immense experience and at no point of time there has been any deficiency on their part. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma is MD from AIIMs, New Delhi in 1994 and Dr. R.D. Yadav is a responsible, competent and highly professional cardiologist. Dr. Chug telephoned to Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, OP-2 at about 6.00 a.m. and informed about some alarming changes found in the ECG of Sh. Harish Arya, deceased, which was conducted by him at the residence of Dr. Ashok Arya, real brother of the deceased for severe pain in the chest. Dr. Chug opined after treatment that there is a gastric trouble for the last 4 days to the deceased and Dr. Chug gave the medicine for that disease. Dr. Chug informed Dr. R.D. Yadav, who reached the hospital on his request and attended the patient. On reaching the Hospital, Dr. R.D. Yadav reviewed the ECG and found extensive anterior wall myocardial infarction (Massive Heart Attack). He followed the recommendations of American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology, prescribed for such heart patients. These recommendations have been reiterated in Para No. B (iii) of the written statement, therefore, it has not been reproduced again. The patient was shifted to Cath Lab A and after performing the coronary angiography, it was found that left anterior descending (LAD) artery had 100% stenosis in the proximal segment. LAD artery is the major blood vessel of Heart and its sudden occlusion leads to massive heart attack and can cause sudden cardiac death. Right coronary artery (RCA) was the dominant artery and also had significant stenosis at origin of Posterior descending artery in the angiographic findings. It was mandatory to mechanically open the artery by Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) to reperfuse the heart muscle (myocardium). This whole process was explained in detail to Dr. Ashok Arya who was watching the while process. LAD artery was successfully opened by Angioplasty with implantation of 3mmx33mm Cypher Stent (Drug Coated Stent). The deceased had been suffering from chest pain and uneasiness for past four days before coming to OP-1 Hospital as told by his brother Dr. Ashok Arya.
Dr. Ashok Arya had diagnosed him for gastric discomfort and used to given him antacid. Dr. Ashok Arya is himself a MBBS doctor. Being a MBBS doctor, he is supposed to be aware of the symptoms of heart attack, which is taught at under graduate level.
5. The deceased was examined by Dr. Chug and Dr. Ashok Arya, real brother of the deceased who could have found the symptoms of heart problem and he could have save the life of his brother. The deceased was a chronic smoker and was consuming alcohol regularly. Smoking is an important risk factor in the development of another sclerotic coronary artery disease, smoking had in fact damaged the blood vessels of the heart of the patient and this condition is terms as antherosclerotic coronary artery disease. The heart disease of the patient occurred four days earlier, therefore patient could have been referred to Cardiac Centre, which was not done.
It is admitted that the patient was admitted about 6.30 a.m. on 20.5.04 and he died on the same day due to massive heart attack despite of the best efforts made by the doctors. Medical treatment in respect of the gastric trouble by Dr. Ashok Arya shows negligence in his treatment himself with regard to his own brother. In cases like massive heart attack after a time gap blood pressure of the patient may fluctuate according to the sympathetic activity. The actual determining factor is the ECG, and clinical condition of the patient and other facts, necessitating angiography and thereafter angioplasty. The ECG of the patient was showing massive heart attack just before the patient was brought to the hospital. The clinical condition of the patient was showing profuse sweating and severe distress indicating the patient was in critical stage necessitating immediate attention.
It is the usual practice in the hospital that in case of requisition of blood, to give requisition slip to the attendants of the patient to arrange blood either by replacing i.e. by donation or by purchasing blood from blood bank. As a matter of practice in Batra Hospital, purchase of blood is not allowed. The requisition slip was given to the attendants to procure the blood from outside as a matter of precaution. Under these circumstances by no stretch of imagination, there is any negligence on the part of these two doctors.
6. OP No. 6 has filed written statement and denied all the allegations.
7. The complainants filed rejoinder and denied fresh allegations made in the written statement.
8. The complainants as well as OPs have filed evidence by way of the affidavit in their own support.
9. We have heard Sh. P.R. Chopra, Ld. Counsel for the Complainants along with son of the complainant and Dr. Bipin Dwivedi, Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and OP-3 & Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, OP-2, present in person and perused the material on record. None appeared for OP No. 6.
10. Ld. Counsel for the complainants has very vehemently submitted that there was sheer medical negligence in conducting the angiography and angioplasty in second time, which has resulted the death of the patient, therefore, the complainants are entitled to the relief claimed. Per Contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the OP that there cannot be said any medical negligence or deficiency in the treatment of the patient by any stretch of imagination on the part of the OPs.
11. Halsburys Laws of England in its 4th Edition Vol. 26 pp. 17-18 defines doctors negligence as under Negligence Duties owed to patient. A person who holds himself out as ready to give medical advice or treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person, whether he is a registered medical practitioner or not, who is consulted by a patient, owes him certain duties, namely, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give; and a duty of care in his administration of that treatment. A breach of any of these duties will support an action for negligence by the patient.
12. In a celebrated and oft-cited judgment in Bolam vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 All ER 118, Mc Nair, L.J. observed that:
I must explain what in law we mean by `negligence. In the ordinary case which does not involve any special skill, negligence in law means this: some failure to do some act which a reasonable man in the circumstances would do, or the doing of some act which a reasonable man in the circumstances would not do; and if that failure or the doing of that act results in injury, than there is a cause of action.
13. Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions, what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have been used.
14. A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings:
either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did not possess.
The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices.
A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
15. To ascertain the medical negligence, cumulative conclusions drawn from various decisions can be summed up in the form of following queries? Decision will depend upon the answers:-
(i) Whether the treating doctor had the ordinary skill and not the skill of the highest degree that he professed and exercised, as everybody is not supposed to possess the highest or perfect level of expertise or skills in the branch he practices?
(ii) Whether the guilty doctor had done something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional would do when in ordinary senses and prudence?
(iii) Whether the risk involved in the procedure or line of treatment was such that injury or death was imminent or risk involved was upto the percentage of failures?
(iv) Whether there was error of judgment in adopting a particular line of treatment? If so what was the level of error? Was it so overboard that result could have been fatal or near fatal or at lowest mortality rate?
(v) Whether the negligence was so manifest and demonstrative that no professional or skilled person in his ordinary senses and prudence could have indulged in?
(vi) Everything being in place, what was the main cause of injury or death. Whether the cause was the direct result of the deficiency in the treatment and medication?
(vii) Whether the injury or death was the result of administrative deficiency or post-operative or condition environment-oriented deficiency?
16. Ld. Counsel for the OP very strenuously submitted that in this case there are not only one medical expert opinion but two medical expert opinions one of G.B. Pant Hospital, which was submitted as per direction of the Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of the complaint filed by the same complainant under Section 304 A/201 IPC and another of Maullana Azad Medical College (MAMC) under direction of the State Commission,- and there is no iota of any reference or negligence in both these two reports alleged to have been committed by the two senior doctors for the OP.
17. The Medical Expert Report of GB Pant Hospital, New Delhi, is dated February 12, 2005, which was given on the direction of the Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 304A/201 IPC. The Medical Board of the GB Pant Hospital, New Delhi consists of Dr. Amit Banerjee, Dr. Sanjay Tyagi and Dr. Vinod Kumar. Dr. Sanjay Tyagi is a Professor and Head, Department of Cardiology, Dr. Amit Banerjee is a Surgeon and Dr. Vinod Kumar is a Senior Consultant. In this report, Medical Board found no medical negligence and given the opinion as quoted below:
Members of the designated Medical Board have carefully gone through and deliberated the records provided in the aforementioned case. The Medical Board is of the Opinion that there has been no apparent medical negligence in the treatment of Late Sh. Harish Arya s/o Late Sh. Lachman Das carried out at Batra Hospital, New Delhi.
It is therefore, manifestly clear that there is no medical negligence on the part of two doctors of the OPs.
18. Other Medical Expert Report of MAMC is of 27.5.13. This report was sought by the State Commission. In this Expert Report, the Medical Board consists of Dr. Vimal Mehta and Dr. Vivek Chaturvedi, who are Associate Professor, Deptt. Of Cardiology and who submitted the report dated 27.5.13 which is as under:
The attached ECG of patient at time of admission on 6.40 a.m. 20.5.04 shows ST-elevation Myocardial infarction (STEMI) in anterior wall of LV, which is usually ascribed to LAD territory.
With a history of acute chest pain and the above mentioned ECG changes, an emergency coronary angiography is justified.
Furthermore, if LAD artery is 100% occluded (as cues in this case) confirming the above scenario of STEMI, a primary angioplasty of the culprit artery is one of the accepted modality of acute treatment of heart attack, with due consent.
19. This report also apparently shows that there is no medical negligence and two doctors namely Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and Dr. R.D. Yadav performed medical treatment in respect of angiography and angioplasty in accordance with the medical norms.
20. Ld. Counsel for the complainant very vehemently submitted that this Commission can ignore the Medical Expert opinion and form their own opinion by holding the medical negligence on the part of the two doctors of the OPs. This contention is devoid of all force. It has been held by Honble National Commission in Dr. H.S. Saini Vs Gurbax Singh 1986-2005 Consumer 8674 (NS) arising of the Revision Petition No. 409/2002, decided on 20.11.2002 that the Commission cannot constitute itself into an expert body and contradict the statement of the doctor unless there is something contrary on the record by way of expert opinion or there is any medical treatise on which reliance could be based. In this case, it was held that negligence not proved by the complainant.
21. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has utterly failed to point out as to what are the contradiction on the record on the way of expert opinion, therefore, two expert opinions as herein above referred cannot be ignored and this Commission cannot sit over them.
22. In this case it is admitted by both the parties that deceased Sh. Harish Arya had severe chest problem for about 4 days and when the pain exaggerated, he was immediately taken to the Batra Hospital, OP-1 on 20.5.04 at 6.30 a.m., which has not been denied. The counsel for the complainant submitted that immediately after the admission, ECG of the deceased was taken in Cardiac Causality by Resident Doctor and thereafter angiography was done by Dr. R.D. Yadav and after sometime another angiography and angioplasty was done by Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and others and on account of the negligence, the patient succumbed to death. Dr. R.D. Yadav and Dr. Sanjeev Sharma filed their affidavits who deposed on oath that a telephonic message was received from Dr. Ashok Arya (real brother of the deceased) and Dr. Chug that after the ECG was done by Dr. Chug of the deceased, some alarming changes were found. It is also in the evidence that Dr. Chug told Dr. R.D. Yadav on telephone that patient, Sh. Harish Arya, was being given a treatment for gastric trouble for last four days by his brother Dr. Ashok Arya and when this information was received in the Hospital, a direction was issued that the patient be taken to Batra Hospital and immediately the patient was consulted by Dr. Ranjan who was Junior Consultant Cardiologist and in the meantime Dr. R.D. Yadav was also reached to attend the patient in order to save the time. On reaching the Hospital Dr. R.D. Yadav reviewed ECG and found extensive anterior wall myocardial infarction (Extensive Heart Attack). In this medical examination and treatment, he followed a recommendation of American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology, prescribed for such heart patients.
If the patient with extensive heart attack reaches the hospital with the facility for coronary angioplasty available, primary coronary angioplasty is the treatment of choice as this helps in opening the blocked artery, thereby restoring blood flow to the damaged heart muscle and thereby improving the prognosis. It is in the evidence that Dr. R.D. Yadav discussed this matter with Dr. Ashok Arya and Dr. Dilip Chug who were present at that time with the patient and both were doctors. This fact has not been denied by the complainants that Dr. Ashok Arya, the real brother of the deceased was not a doctor and that prior to the admission in the Batra Hospital, the deceased was being examined by Dr. Dilip Chug at the house of the deceased for four days. The deceased was immediately taken to Cath Lab A and Dr. Ashok Arya and Dr. Dilip Chug also accompanied. After the angiography was conducted, it was found that the left anterior descending (LAD) artery had 100% stenosis in the proximal segment LAD artery is the major blood vessel of Heat and its sudden occlusion leads to massive heart attack and can cause sudden cardiac death. Right coronary artery (RCA) was the dominant artery an also had significant stenosis at origin of Posterior descending artery in the angiographic findings. It was further deposed that it was incumbent on the part of the doctor rather mandatory to mechanically open the artery by Precutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) to reperfuse the heart muscle myocardium. The entire process as laid down in the American Heart Association and Amerian College of Cardiology was adopted by these two doctors namely Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and Dr. R.D. Yadav and it was also explained to Dr. Ashok Arya who was watching the whole process. If Dr. Sanjeev Sharma and Dr. R.D. Yadav has bypass the aforesaid process of conducting angiography and angioplasty and deviated from medical procedure, why Dr. Ashok Arya has not pointed out at the same time. LAD artery was successfully opened having 100% blockage.
23. It is in the evidence that the deceased was feeling uneasiness for the last four days in respect of the chest and complaining the chest pain before coming the Batra Hospital as pointed out by his brother Dr. Ashok Arya but unfortunately Dr. Ashok Arya, real brother of the deceased has diagnosed for gastric discomfort and used to give him antacids. Suffice to say that Dr. Ashok Arya is a MBBS Doctor. If Dr. Ashok Arya has applied his mind in the right directions, symptoms of the heart problem could have been found apparently on the deceased. There is no denying the fact that the heart decease of the patient occurred four days earlier and he could have referred the patient to cardiac centre but it was not done by Dr. Ashok Arya.
24. The deceased was a chronic smoker and also consuming alcohol regularly which may lead to heart attack and deceased should have been sent to the hospital immediately but it was not done by Dr. Ashok Arya and it may be presumed that there was negligence in the treatment of Dr. Ashok Arya in as much as Dr. Ashok Arya should have conducted the ECG to find out the heart problem and later on after four days the ECG was conducted by Dr. Dilip Chug who found the critical condition of the patient and consequently he was referred to Batra Hospital.
25. The counsel for the complainant further submitted that after conducting the angiography and angioplasty, why the second angiography and angioplasty was conducted and it shows that there was a negligence in the first angiography and angioplasty. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, who is present before us has explained that there was no negligence in conducting the first angiography and angioplasty but later on the angiography and angioplasty was conducted in as much as some blood started depositing near the angioplasty, therefore, another angioplasty was conducted. How it can be negligent, no reason is given by the complainants nor by Dr. Ashok Arya who himself is a doctor.
26. It is also argued by the counsel for the complainants that in this case, two CDs were prepared but only one CD was given and deliberately second CD was not given even after the payment of Rs. 1000/-.
This argument is also against the record. Paper No. 54 is a letter dated 18.9.04 of the Cath lab Technician of OP-1, Batra Hospital, which specifically mentioned that two CDs of the treatment of Sh. Harish Arya was handed over to Dr. Ashok Arya (real brother of the deceased) after seeing the receipt of Rs. 1000/- and tick mark in the register was made. The OPs have also produced copy of said registered which shows that on 20.5.04, the CDs were received which bears the signatures of Dr. Ashok Arya.
27. Dr. Sanjeev Sharma is a doctorate of Medicine (D.M.) Cardiology from AIIMS, New Delhi in 1994 and also worked with National Heart Institute as consultant cardiologist till July 2003. He has written numerous articles and papers, which have been published in the several journals of cardiology. Dr. R.D. Yadav is also highly qualified professional cardiologist and is DM Cardiology from AIIMS.
Obviously these two doctors are highly qualified. It has been held by Honble Nation Commission in Biswanath Das (Dr.) Vs. Bijoy Sinha Roy & Ors IV(2007)CPJ 223 (NC) that if the doctors are highly qualified, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on their part. It has also been held by Honble National Commission in S.C. Lahri (Dr.) Vs. pawan Kr. & Anr. I (2008) CPJ 372 (NC) that if the method adopted in surgery by the doctors is acceptable to medical profession, there can be no deficiency or negligence.
28. Under these circumstances, this complaint is frivolous, baseless and vexatious and filed with malafide intention, therefore, it is dismissed.
29. A copy of this judgement and order as per the statutory requirements be provided to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
(V.K. GUPTA) MEMBER JUDICIAL (S.C. JAIN) MEMBER rn