Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed, before the District Forum. Averments in the complaint:

3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant approached the Hospital, which is run by Fortis Healthcare Limited through its Directors/Managing Directors/Principal Officers and is a Corporate Hospital having its branches Nationally and Internationally. The claim of the complainant arises upon the alleged negligence of the Hospital, the Doctors and the Para Medical Staff. It has been alleged that on 18.6.2009, Amarjeet Singh, complainant, suffered severe abdominal pain. He approached Dr. Gagandeep, a Medical Specialist, who advised C.T. Scan. The complainant got done the C.T. Scan from Dhillon C.T. Scan Centre and the findings were suggestive of "Suspicion of Omental Infarct with Segmental Thickening of the adjacent portion of the small Gut". On examination of the report the Medical Specialist referred the complainant to opposite party No.1- Hospital. Accordingly opposite party No.1-Hospital admitted the complainant under the supervision of Dr. Arun K. Chopra-opposite party No.2, who is a Cardiologist and not a Gastroenterologist. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that at that time he required immediate treatment for abdominal pain as the findings were suggestive of some ailment, which was abdominal in nature and was clear from the C.T. Scan report. At that point of time the services of Gastroenterologist were required to be requisitioned but opposite party No.2, who is a Cardiologist, continued with cardiac treatment. The complainant and his attendants requested opposite party No.2 to get the treatment of the complainant from Gastroenterologist as the complainant was suffering from abdominal pain. However, opposite party No.2 did not bother to the requests made by the complainant and his attendants. On 20.6.2009 the condition of the complainant further deteriorated. Opposite party No.2 called opposite party No.3, who is only a General Surgeon and not Gastroenterologist. Opposite party No.3 also examined the complainant on 20.6.2009 and advised Exploratory Laparotomy to know the cause of abdominal pain of the complainant. Again the ultrasound was conducted on 22.6.2009, which established the problem in the Mesentric Region of the complainant but again the Hospital authorities did not requisition the services of specialist in Gastroenterologist or the Gastric Surgeon. The complainant was advised for surgery of his abdominal region and surgery was performed upon the complainant by opposite party No.3 and was told that the surgery was successful but the complainant was not discharged after the said surgery. During the surgery the complainant was administered 12 units of blood by opposite party No.3. Ultimately the complainant was discharged by opposite party No.2 on 3.7.2009 and at that point of time the complainant was still suffering from abdominal pain and was to visit opposite party No.2 for post operative follow up. The complainant was prescribed medicine known as Tablet Acitrom 3 mg. daily by opposite party No.2. On 19.7.2009 the complainant suffered extensive bleeding with stool and he immediately approached opposite party No.2, who admitted the complainant in the Hospital and further investigations was started. It was found that the Hb of the complainant was on lower side and also started verifying the health of the heart i.e. the cardiac check was started. At that point of time also no investigation for the problem, which the complainant had narrated to opposite party No.2, was done to find out the cause of bleeding and still continued the treatment by prescribing the tablet Acitrom 3 mg. At that point of time also the services of Gastroenterologist or the Gastric Surgeon in the said specialty were not requisitioned but opposite party No.2 advised the complainant to get discharged. At that time the complainant was still passing extensive blood with stool and was having abdominal pain. The condition of the complainant started deteriorating. Thereafter on 20.7.2009 the complainant got himself admitted in Satguru Partap Singh Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana, where Dr. Arindham Ghosh, Gastroenterologist, was available. Dr. Ghosh after stabilizing the complainant got investigated the cause of bleeding and found out that tablet Acitrom 3 mg. was continued by opposite party No.2 despite bleeding, which is not advisable. The surgery conducted by opposite party No.3 was not proper. It is required to be redone. It is the specific case of the complainant that he was discharged by the Hospital in critical condition. However, he got subsequent treatment under Dr. Ghosh of Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana. The complainant paid about ₹4,50,000/- for the treatment from 18.6.2009 till discharge to opposite party No.1-Hospital. Alleging deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties the complainant filed the complaint for the refund of the amount of ₹4,50,000/- spent on his treatment and ₹12 lakhs, as compensation for sufferings etc. along with litigation expenses.

This being a high risk case consent of the wards/attendants was necessary, which was not given till 9.00 P.M. on 20.6.2009 and it was given by one Jagdeep Kang, son-in-law of the patient. It has also been averred by him that all medical and surgical maneuvers of a patient having an artificial valve in the blood stream along with CABG is preferably done under the supervision of a Cardiologist (even tooth extraction). Significant risks include (a) Bacteriemia leading to colonization of artificial valve (b) Uncontrollable Bleeding on account of blood thinner (c) Multiple drug interactions. This blood thinner like Acitrom is anti coagulant drug which is prescribed by the Cardiologist and is to be taken life long after A.V.R. In this case also the patient had undergone A.V.R. from Apollo Hospital, Delhi on 7.10.2004. The patient also needed Cardiologist's supervision all the time. It is further averred that opposite party No.3 has been dragged into this litigation without any fault. He is not responsible in any way. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Finding of the District Forum:

opposite party No.3 (appellant in FA No.999 of 2014) had planned endoscopy and advised the patient to keep fasting for the midnight. The complainant paid the charges of opposite party No.3. The complainant was discharged on 20.7.2009 at 8:53 A.M. in the morning. Colonoscopy was done by the Apollo Hospital after admission, which showed normal study and reference to the Discharge Summary of the Apollo Hospital was made. It was further argued that the patient did not have any episode of blood after 19th of July 2009 after his medication was managed and conservative treatment was done till the stay in opposite party No.1-Hospital and as such, he was managed in a proper manner. In such cases immediate need was to get the 'malena' cured first which was done and the surgical intervention was a subsequent step. All the complications were explained to the patient. On 19.7.2009 the Hb of the patient was 6.9 at 1.55 P.M. as a result of which unit of blood at 9.30 P.M. was given and the patient started feeling comfortable and he was also kept empty stomach for planned endoscopy in the morning. However, the Hb level was not checked. The normal time taken for transfusion of the blood unit is in the range of 1-2 hours and Hb recovers after 3-4 hours of blood transfusion. By the time the patient was discharged on 20.7.2009 and was taken to the Apollo Hospital. The complainant himself not opted for endoscopy but he wanted to get himself discharged. It was further argued by the learned counsel that if the blood continued to have passed along with the stools, then the level of Hb could not have arisen from 6.9 on 19.7.2009 to 8.1 on 21.7.2009. The other parameters speak that condition of the patient when he was discharged and admitted in the Apollo Hospital itself was stable. It was also argued that first surgery was done at opposite party No.1-Hospital, which was done on 20.6.2009 and clear indication was mentioned, which is clear from the medical record that re-surgery may be required and the consent was given late at night around 9.00 p.m. Thereafter the surgery was commenced at 10.00 P.M. and continued till 1.15 A.M. in the morning. This surgery was done in emergency and in fact was a life saving surgery. The second surgery was done on 22.7.2009 at 3.50 P.M. at Apollo Hospital when the patient was stable and 'malena' was conservatively managed. The affidavit and the averments made in the complaint are wrong. The complainant was not only treated by the Cardiologist but by the Doctors who were well versed with regard to the abdominal problems. In view of this, the District Forum has overlooked the findings of the Medical Expert Committee. The patient's attendants were explained in writing about the high risk surgery. The finding recorded by the District Forum with regard to the relevancy of the expert opinion on the face of it is erroneous. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:-

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant referred to the written arguments submitted by him and also advanced oral arguments. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that earlier the complainant had consulted Dr. Gagandeep Singh, who had advised C.T. Scan of the abdomen, which was got done by him from Dhillon C.T. Scan Centre. The findings were suggestive of "Suspicion of Omental Infarct with Segmental Thickening of the adjacent portion of the small Gut". On examination of that report Dr. Gagandeep Singh referred the complainant to opposite party No.1-Hospital and had also called opposite party No.2-Dr. Arun K. Chopra, who is a Cardiologist. It was further argued that in-spite of the fact that the C.T. Scan clearly indicated the abdomen pain and abdomen problem but no treatment with regard to the same was given. The services of Gastroenterologist were not requisitioned nor any Specialist Surgeon relating to the gastro problem was summoned. The treatment was carried out by a Cardiologist and a General Physician i.e. opposite parties Nos.2 and 3. Both of them were not competent to perform abdominal surgery i.e. jejuno jejunal anastomosis but the surgery was carried out by opposite party No.3, though he was not expert in the said field. Learned counsel further argued that the opposite parties were fully aware that the surgery was a high risk surgery and the consent was sought for the same but the super specialists for the said purpose were not summoned, which makes out a clear case of medical negligence. It was further argued that the observation of Dr. Ghosh of Apollo Hospital, Gastroenterologist, who had performed the second surgery clearly indicates medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It was further argued that expert opinion has rightly been brushed aside because it does not give any reasons and logic and no reference to the qualification of the Surgeon of opposite party No.1-Hospital has been made. It was further argued that there is a catena of judgments that in every case expert opinion is not necessary if the medical record otherwise makes it clear that there was medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. He prayed that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and the same is liable to be upheld. Consideration of Contentions: