Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah, President;
Mr. J.N. Srinivasa Murthy & Mrs. Rama Ananth, Members
M.R. SHANTHAPPA & ORS.—Complainants
versus
DR. NAVEENCHANDRA RAJ & ANR.—Respondents
Complaint No. 18 of 1999—Decided on 2.1.2006
For the Complainant :Mr. Bipin Hegde, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. B.R. Deepak and Mr. Rajeshwar, Advocates.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 12, 17 - Medical Negligence - Radiologist - Angiography using a contrast dye assuring the patient that it was cent per cent safe to the kidneys - Complainant, suffering from diabetes and Hypertension, developed in both the lower limbs, after his retirement - He consulted doctors of Mallya Hospital where he was admitted to undergo angiography of both the lower limbs - However, in the investigation done by cardiologist, Endocrinologist and Nephrologist, it was reported that there was early chances of diabetic nephropathy/diabetic kidney disease - In view of patients kidney status, they advised the alternative investigation, MRI angiogram without using the contrast dye - Mallya Hospital at that time had no such facility of MRI - Patient was referred to OP No. 2 Hospital where OP No. 1 used to do MRI - OP No. 1 performed digital subtraction angiography DSA using a special dye stating that it will not affect kidney functions in any way - Complaint filed alleging that the patients condition worsened subsequently resulting in renal failure - Whether there was deficiency in service and negligence by O.P. 1 in treating the patient - (Yes) - Patient is awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
Held: Evidence of the OP No. 1 - R.W. 1 clearly shows that he has differed from the reference, and has conducted the procedure as he liked, and his evidence is full of contradictions from his oral statement and existing documents as pointed above. C.W. 3 has specifically denied in his affidavit that OP No. 1 did not discuss with him about the reference. In the cross-examination of C.W. 3 no suggestion was made and it is now deposed by OP No. 1 for which there is no supporting document. There is a lot of improvement in his evidence and the records and the affidavit and there is a clear admission by him that the procedure conducted by him is not in accordance with the reference which is having positive affirmation by doctor C.W. 3 about the risk factor to the patient in this case. Coupled with the above material and the evidence of C.W. 3 and the evidence of C.W. 1 clearly makes out that OP No. 1 did not act in doing DSA procedure as prescribed by specialist of Mallya Hospital. When the reference letter issued is based upon the opinion of the four specialists of Mallya Hospital, if he did not agree with it, he should have sent back the reply letter along with the reference letter refusing to do which is not done. The evidence of OP No. 1 of ora1 refusal cannot be accepted in the absence of any written document of mentioning the medical records of the patient. Under this circumstance the material available clearly shows deficiency in service and negligence by OP No.1 in treating the patient for DSA procedure and after the deterioration and complication of the patient, complainant case in that regard deserves to be accepted, and it is upheld. The stand taken by OP No. 1 in his version, evidence and affidavit is not uniform. So the case of the Op No. 1 cannot be upheld, and it has to be rejected. As rightly pointed out by C.W. 1, OP No. 2 the hospital has not even bothered to check up the position of the patient after DSA procedure. This shows negligence on the part of the OP No. 2 also. In view of this the points raised in 1 to 3 are required to be, and answered in affirmative. Accordingly it is answered.(Para 21)
The question is about the compensation. The complaint and the evidence of C.Ws. 1 and 2 shows that claim of the compensation is under different heads. Accordingly to it medical expenses incurred on the patient is Rs. 1,25,276.02. The complainants have produced the receipts issued by OP No. 2 hospital. In this case there is no material in support of item Nos. 5 and 6 namely the medical expenses of present and future of complainant No. 2 and miscellaneous expenses including transport, and item No. 6 will not survive in view of the death of complainant No. 1. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case
the reasonable compensation to this case is Rs. l,50,000.(Para 22)
Result : Complaint allowed in part.
Mr. J.N. Srinivasa Murthy, Member—Sri. M.R. Shanthappa and four others have filed this complaint against Dr. Naveenchandra Raj Urs and against Wockherdt Hospital and Heart Institute, Bangalore praying for a direction to the above OPs to pay the complainants a compensation of Rs. 10,00,276.02.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
3. The complainant No. 1 M.R. Shanthappa has been suffering from Diabities and Hypertension for the last 20 years and above with the regular treatment. After his retirement as District Registrar in July 1997 he found time to boost up his health by doing exercise. He developed pain in both the lower limbs. He consulted Dr. N.K. Bhagvan of Mallya Hospital on 13.6.1998 and got himself admitted on 19.6.1998 in Mallya Hospital to undergo angiography of both the lower limbs. In the investigation done by Dr. Ranganath Naik, Cardiologist, Dr. S.S. Srikanta, Endocrinologist and Dr. Sunder, Nephrologist and Dr. Bhalla had referred that there was early chances of diabetic nephropathy/diabetic kidney disease. In view of this kidney status the above doctors explained to him that angiography using a contrast dye medium carried a significant risk of acute renal failure for which he was unwilling to undergo the same. They advised the alternative investigation. MRI angiogram without using the contrast dye can be carried out. Mallya Hospital at that time had no such facility of MRI. Dr. Bhagvan informed that it is available with OP No. 2 Hospital and OP No. 1 does the M.R.I. He gave a reference letter to OP No. 1. Complainant No. 4-Doctor, met the OP No. 1 at Elbit Diagnostic and handed over the reference letter and produced kidney function test reports of Mallya Hospital. After going through this, OP No. 1 told the complainant Nos. 1 and 4 that MRI angiogram will not reveal peripheral vascular disease and he suggested digital subtraction angiography “DSA” using a special dye which was cent percent safe to the kidneys and will not affect its function in any way. In view of the opinion of the doctors who have been consulted at Mallya Hospital the complainants 1 and 4 requested OP No. 1 to discuss with the above Doctors of Mallya Hospital before angiography. For which he agreed and said that he would consult them and inform them to come after two days. Accordingly OP No. 1 telephoned to complainant No. 4 that he had discussed with the consultants of Mallya Hospital and told him to bring complainant No. 1 to OP No. 2 hospital on 27.6.1998 to carry out the angiography test as suggested by him earlier. In view of that both of them went to OP No. 2 on 27.6.1998 for test suggested by OP No. 1 which was available in OP No. 2 hospital. OP No. 1 performed angiography and told them that by using a special dye he has done it. The complainant No. 1 complained of abdominal discomfort and decrease urine output immediately after the angiography. OP No. 1 told that they are symptoms and not of significance and the complainant No. 1 had not taken enough water and symptoms may be due to the stress of the procedure of conduction angiography. He advised to discharge on the very same day, but due to the uneasiness of complainant No. 1 he along with complainant No. 4 stayed in the hospital and got discharged on 28.6.1998. After return to the house of the complainant No. 1 during the next 24 hours his discomfort worsened and urine output stopped completely. Complainant No. 4 telephoned OP No. 1 and informed the same for which OP No. 1 assured there is no cause to worry and everything will be alright. The complainant No. 4 informed OP No. 1 over telephone that he will be taking his father to Mallya Hospital in view of worsened condition and he consulted a nephrologist. On 29.6.1998 while going on the way to Mallya Hospital complainant No. 1 developed breathlessness which rapidly progressed even as he was being shifted into the casualty of Mallya Hospital. There he suffered respiratory arrest followed by cardiac arrest and mass
