Back
2009(4) CPR 269 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member
Pushkar Dutt —Appellant
versus
Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 431 of 2005
Decided on 17.11.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. T.C. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. B.L. Saini, Advocate and Mr. Revision, Sr. Law Officer Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana,
IMPORTANT POINT
Allegation of medical negligence has to be proved by complainant by adducing expert evidence.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 17 and 21—Medical negligence— Treatment for heart disease—Alleged deficiency in service—Complaint dismissed by State Commission—Petitioner had suffered two heart attacks in quick succession—But, operation had to be abandoned as blood was found in pericardium and operation at that stage would have been dangerous to life of patient—Simple allegation that blockage of 70% and 50%, respectively of two arteries did not require operation is not enough to support contention of petitioner that operation was not required to be done—No medical expert/evidence led by appellant/complainant to substantiate allegation of medical negligence—A doctor can be held guilty of medical negligence only where his conduct falls short below that of standard of a reasonably competent doctor in his field—Blood in pericardium cannot be detected without opening the heart—Respondent not guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 10,11, 14 to 17)
Ashok Bhan, President—Appellant herein, who was the complainant before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SCO No.3009-10, Sector-22D, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) , has filed this First Appeal against the Order dated 22.08.2005 passed by the State Commission in Complaint No.7 of 2001 whereby the complaint of the Appellant has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:
Appellant, aged 60 years of age, is the resident of Mandi Gobindgarh. On 14.5.2000, he felt extensive pain in the left region of his chest and was taken to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana-respondent No.1 herein. He was admitted in the hospital on 19.5.2000 and certain diagnosis, including coronary angiography, was done. As per angiography report dated 25.5.2000, it was reported that there was blockage of about 70% and 50%, respectively, in the two arteries. Appellant incurred Rs.33,642 for the above said diagnosis and admission in the hospital. He was discharged on 1.6.2000 and was not advised any surgery. On 3.6.2000, appellant again felt pain in the left region of his chest and was again admitted in the hospital. Dr. Rakesh Sudan-respondent No.2 herein, was the doctor in-charge, advised the appellant to undergo treatment of coronary artery bypass graft and performed operation of coronary artery bypass graft upon the appellant on 9.6.2000. Respondent No.2 opened the heart of the appellant but abandoned the operation on the ground that some blood was found inside pericardium. Appellant paid Rs.97,727 to respondent No.1 for the operation of coronary artery bypass graft and incurred Rs.1,00,000 on medicines, etc., as per the advice of respondent No.2. Appellant was discharged from the hospital on 17.6.2000 and was advised 3 months bed rest. In the discharge summary, the blockage of artery was shown to be 90% whereas in angiography, it was 70%. Appellant then approached Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre on 28.11.2000 where he was examined by Dr. Trehan and Dr. A. Mathur who advised him certain medicines and no operation much less bypass surgery was advised by them. Being aggrieved, appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondents and seeking direction to the respondents to refund Rs.1,31,369 charged from him for his stay in the hospital on two occasions, to refund Rs.1,00,000 incurred on medicines and to pay interest @ 24% p.a. w.e.f. June, 2000 till the date of refund. Appellant further demanded Rs.5,00,000 towards compensation for putting him to grave physical danger, pain and agony and for mental harassment undergone by him.
3. Respondents, after being served, filed their written statements taking the preliminary objection that the appellant was treated by well known experienced doctors. It was stated that the appellant was treated by Dr. R. Calton, who is a Professor of Cardiology in respondent No.1, having vast experience. That appellant was also treated by Dr. Rakesh Sudan-respondent No.2, who is a Reader in the Department of Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Surgery of respondent No.1, having an experience of more than 14 years. That the complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law, which require full-scale lengthy trial, the remedy for which does not lie before the Consumer Commission. That the appellant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the fact that the Angiography film is in his possession which he had taken on request from the respondents on 16.6.2000 with a promise to return the same after showing it to some other doctors but had intentionally not returned the same and without the Angiography film, respondents cannot give effective reply to the allegations made in the complaint. That the appellant was admitted on 1.6.2000 but was not advised surgery. That the patient had left main Artery disease with diffuse disease of LAD and the left
