Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Complaint was contested by Ops, who filed their written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op; the allegations in the complaint are wholly false, fabricated, frivolous, fake and untenable. In fact the complainant met with an accident on 4.2.2013 and was taken to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana as per MRI cervical spine dated 21.2.2013. He had injury in the spine. Complainant and his relative insisted to get a much advance treatment from a renowned Neurosurgeon, got him discharged from DMC on 24.2.2013 and was admitted with Ops. Whereas Op No. 2 is a well known Neurosurgeon and the hospital was also enrolled under the ECHS scheme. As per MRI, he was suffering from C-3, C-4 Anterior Dislocation alongwith C-5, C-6 disc with an underlying spinal cord oedema. He was also having complaint of worsening of Motor Power alongwith weakness of all four limbs as chartered in the emergency record. Further examination of MRI revealed, dislocation of C-3, C-4 alongwith C-5, C-6 disc with cord compression and code oedema. MRI was recent i.e. 10 days back only, therefore, no fresh MRI was conducted as the patient should be avoided from such exposure as far as possible. The consent was taken from the relative of the complainant and operation was conducted successfully. On 8.3.2013 and during operation, it was found that there was marked dislocation at C-3, C-4 with cord compression and myelopathy and there was PIVD at C-6, C-7 level alongwith cord impingement. In such a condition, operation procedure was best possible curative operation procedure and was done by qualified and experienced Neurosurgeon-Op No. 2. After the operation, when MRI was conducted, MRI showed increase in cord oedema with mild compression of spinal cord due to the implant. To remove the said complication Methyl Prednisolone was started. Treatment was given as per NASCIS-3 Protocol, which is standard form of treatment recommended for all patients with spine injury. However, very slow improvement was seen in the complainant, therefore, it was decided to remove implant and complainant was put to conservative treatment procedure like physiotherapy and when there was some improvement, he was discharged on 21.4.2013 in a satisfactory condition. During the period of his admission from 4.3.2013 to 21.4.2013, complainant suffered the problem of loose stools with increased frequency of motions for which qualified gastro-enterologist was consulted and was treated. However, the complainant was again admitted on 21.4.2013 and remained admitted upto 23.4.2013 during which period number of medicines were advised as a part of treatment and was discharged on 23.4.2013. Complainant was again admitted for the 3rd time on 23.4.2013 with problem of hypertension, COPD, Type-2 diabetes alognwith complaints of weakness in right upper limb and was thoroughly investigated. The complainant underwent C-3, C-4 Laminectomy and posterior fixation using lateral mass screw on 27.4.2013 with conservative treatment alongwith Physiotherapy and various consent forms were taken to undergo further surgery and patient was discharged on 27.6.2013 in a satisfactory condition. The complainant was again got admitted for the 4th time on 31.7.2013 with problem of high grade fever, COPD, Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus alongwith complaints of difficulty and pain during urination. He was thoroughly investigated and was managed with antibiotics and supportive treatment. Alonwith Physiotherapy on examination through Ultrasound, vesicle calculus (Stones) were found in the urinary bladder, which was treated by expert Surgeons led by Dr. Vikas Kumar. Requisite consents were taken from the patient/attendants. Improvement was slow but relatives of the complainant insisted Op Hospital for discharge so that he could be taken to Indian Spinal Injury Hospital. Accordingly, he was discharged on 4.9.2013. Neurological deterioration after surgery and implant failure and misplaced implants have been reported in 20% cases, therefore, in case any problem was caused to the complainant during the treatment, it was a known complication of the procedure but no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. With regard to the medical record as and when the complainant applied for the record, the same was supplied to him and it was further advised to him that in case some more record is required, it can be collected from the MRD after contacting the Senior Executive. It was stated that there was no negligence on the part of Ops and complaint is without basis. On merits, the averments referred above in the preliminary objections were reiterated. It was again reiterated that the treatment was given as per the medical protocol as referred above. There was no negligence on the part of Ops. Complaint is without merit, it should be dismissed with costs.

- Removal of implant and bone was done.

In case we go through the hospital course giving the details from 4.3.2013 to 21.4.2013, it is referred as under;-

"Hospital Course:
Patient came with h/o RTA one month back with diagnosis of Acute subluxation C3-C4 with cord odema. He is k/c/o COPD and hypertension on treatment and now complaint of weakness on right upper limb. Treated outside but referred to SPS Apollo Hospital for further management. Patient was operated on 8.3.2013. Patient had deterioration of motor power of lower limb. Urgent MRI done post operative on 9.3.2013. MRI cervical spine was done which showed C3-4 to C6-7 post operative and implant related signal abnormality with posterior displacement causing. Anesthesia review was made & Inj. Solumedrol was started. Patient had bilateral U/L & LL weakness and was shifted to MICU for close monitoring. Patient had c/o loose stools with increased frequency of motions for which gastro-

10. The Ops have discharged the patient from time to time but was again admitted on the same day without explaining sufficient reasons. When the patient was discharged on 21.4.2013, in the hospital course, it has been mentioned that the patient is being discharged in a satisfactory condition. He was again admitted on 21.4.2013 vide discharge summary Ex. Op-6 and in the chief complaints and brief history, it was mentioned as under:-

"Patient is a k/c/o Hypertension, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, COPD, now presented complaint of weakness on lower limb."

These were already being faced by the patient and the counsel for the Ops as well as Doctor was unable to explain what was level of their satisfaction and what were the reasons to discharge, in case the patient was to be again re-admitted on the same day. On 23.4.2013, it has been again mentioned that the patient is being discharged in a satisfactory condition, however, while discharge summary (Ex. Op-9), the complainant was again admitted on 23.4.2013 with complaints as under:-

"Patient is a k/c/o Hypertension, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, COPD, now presented complaint of weakness on lower limb."