National Consumer Disputes Redressal
K. Dasharatham & 2 Ors. vs Dr. Hema Raghu Chitneni & 2 Ors. on 17 November, 2021
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 30/12/2013 in Complaint No. 64/2011 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. K. DASHARATHAM & 2 ORS. S/O. LATE NARASAIAH, METPALLY POST AND MANDAL, KARIMNAGAR DISTICT. ANDHRA PRADESH 2. K. RAGHURAM S/O. K. DASHARATHAM, METPALLY POST AND MANDAL, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. K. RAGHURAM S/O. K. DASHARATHAM, METPALLY POST AND MANDAL, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. K. NITHEESHA D/O. K. DASHARATHAM METPALLY POST AND MANDAL, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. DR. HEMA RAGHU CHITNENI & 2 ORS. W/O. DR. RAGHAVENDRA RAO CHITNENI, NITYASAI EMERGENCY AND MATERNITY HOSPITAL, OLD STATE BANK BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, METPALLY POST AND MANDAL KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. DR. SANTOSH PATIL S/O. DEVINDERAPPA PATIL, NIITYA SAI EMERGENCY AND MATERNITY HOSPITAL, METPALLY POST AND MANDAL, KARIMNAGARA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. NITYA SAI EMEGENCY AND MATERNITY HOSPITAL REP. BY ITS M.D. OLD STATE BANK BUILDING, AIN ROAD, METPALLY POST AND MANDAL, KARIM NAGARA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Appellant : For the Respondent :
Dated : 17 Nov 2021 ORDER
Appeared at the time of arguments through video conferencing
For Appellants
:
Mrs. K. Radha, Advocate
For Respondents
:
Mr. M. Vijaya Bhaskar, Advocate
Pronounced on: 17th November 2021
ORDER
PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. The present First Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 30.12.2013 in Complaint No. 64 of 2011, wherein the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") dismissed the Complaint of alleged medical negligence solely on the basis of expert Committee report.
2. For convenience, the Parties are being referred as to the positions they held in the State Commission. Appellants would be referred as Complainants and the Respondents would be referred as Opposite Parties.
3. Briefly the facts are that Smt. Sudhamala (since deceased hereinafter referred as the 'patient') underwent hysterectomy operation on 12.06.2009. It was performed under spinal anesthesia by Dr. Hema Raghu Chitneni (the Opposite Party No. 1) at Nitya Sai Emergency and Maternity Hospital (the Opposite Party No. 3). The Opposite Party No. 2, Dr. Santosh Patil, an Anesthetist gave fitness for the surgery. It was alleged that after one hour of commencement of the operation, the Opposite Party No. 1 came out of the operation theatre and informed that, the patient developed heavy bleeding and cardiac arrest. Therefore, the patient was shifted to Apollo Research Hospital, Karimnagar for ventilator support and better facilities. The doctors therein informed that the patient was already brain dead. However, in spite of ventilator support and Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), the condition of patient did not improve and she died in the early morning on 13.06.2009. In the Death Certificate the cause of death was stated as "post abdominal hysterectomy leading to sudden cardio pulmonary arrest with multiple organ failure". Being aggrieved by the alleged negligence and deficient operating skills of the treating doctors, which led to heavy bleeding and death of patient, the Complainants filed a Complaint before the State Commission.
4. The Opposite Party No. 1 filed the Written Version and denied all allegations made by the Complainants. The Opposite Parties Nos. 2 & 3 have adopted the written version of the Opposite Party No. 1. It was contended that on 12.06.2009 at 5:30 p.m. during the operation, huge fibroids were found which were shown to the patient's husband and the doctor explained the risk of proceeding further, which the husband of patient accepted. At about 7.30 p.m., the patient suffered a cardiac arrest. Every possible step (CPR) to revive the patient was taken. For further cardiac management including ventilatory support, she was shifted to Apollo Hospital in an ambulance accompanied by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2. There was no negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and the death of patient was due to cardiac arrest, thus the Complaint was liable to be dismissed.
5. The State Commission, after appraisal evidence on record, held that there was no negligence from the Opposite Parties and dismissed the Complaint.
6. Being aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Complainants preferred the present First Appeal.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel on both the sides. Perused the material on record, the operative notes and progress sheet of the hospitals.
8. The learned Counsel for the Complainant vehemently argued that the Opposite Party No. 1 carelessly performed the operation and therefore the patient suffered heavy bleeding. The principle of res ipsa loquitor is squarely applicable. The Opposite Party No. 1 failed to control the bleeding. The Blood Pressure (BP) was non-recordable between 7.35 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. and the patient was not responding to painful stimuli. The Opposite Party No. 1 simply without specifying the reasons referred the patient to the higher center for further management. It was not sure whether the Opposite Party No. 1 transfused the blood to the patient which was arranged by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties falsely opined that the cause of death was due to cardiac arrest. The doctors at Apollo Hospital expressed that the brain death of the patient might be due to over dose of anesthesia.
9. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties vehemently argued that there was no negligence while performing the operation. The patient was informed about huge fibroid and its operative complications. He further argued that the Expert Medical Board opined that vide its report dated 17.11.2009, the doctors followed the necessary medical and surgical protocols while performing the operation and there was no negligence. Also, the Medical Superintendent at District Head Quarters Hospital, Karimnagar gave his opinion dated 15.08.2009 that the death of the patient was due to cardiac arrest.
10. The Medical Record and the operative notes revealed us that admittedly on 12.06.2009 the patient underwent hysterectomy operation at about 5.30 pm, there was huge fibroid. Post-operatively at 7.30 p.m. the patient suffered cardiac arrest. Though, the patient was transfused 2 units of blood but the BP was not recordable, pulse was feeble. The doctors initiated CPR. The blood was continued, oxygen supply was continuous and the Dopamine dip was started. Injection Atropine and Adrenaline were given. The patient was intubated and connected to Boyle's and ventilation continued. At 8.00 p.m. the doctors noticed the patient was not responding painful stimuli. As the ventilator support facility was not available in the Opposite Party No. 3 hospital, the patient was shifted to higher center Apollo Hospital for the further cardiac management with the Ambu-bag and O2 support. At Apollo Hospital the relatives of the patient were explained about the serious condition of the patient, the doctors continued the resuscitation as per ACLS guidelines; however, the patient could not survive and declared dead at 2 a.m. on 13.06.2009.
11. We would like to rely upon the catena of judgments from Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that the medical practitioner cannot be held liable for medical negligence simply because the things went wrong as long as the doctors performed their duties with ordinary degree of professional skill and competence. We further note that the AP Medical Board appointed an expert Committee consisting of two doctors - Professor and Head Forensic Medicine namely, Dr. Surender Reddy, from Gandhi Hopsital, Secunderabad and Dr. M. Narayan Reddy from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad who in their report, dated 17.11.2009 opined that there was no negligence of the operating doctors.
12. In the instant case we are of considered view that the doctors followed the reasonable standard of care and there was neither deviation nor deficiency in service during operation or handling the post-operative complication. Considering the entirety of the case the Complainants failed to prove their allegations of excessive anesthesia or excessive bleeding during the operation.
13. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Complainant failed conclusively to prove that the treating doctors were negligent. We concur with the Order of the State Commission, which requires no interference.
The instant First Appeal is dismissed.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER