IMPORTANT POINT
Doctrine of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ is not applicable to cases of medical negligence.

V.R. Kingaonkar, Presiding Member—This appeal arises out of judgement and order of the State Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 82/2001.

2. Original complainant Smt. Kanta was aged 55 years at the relevant time. At the fag end of August 1999, she suffered acute chest pain. She consulted a medical practitioner at Amritsar. The consultant examined her and found that the symptoms could be of a heart attack. The medical practitioner accordingly advised her to obtain opinion and treatment of a cardiologist and cardio surgeon. Her family members took her to Jalandhar. They consulted appellant no. 2 Dr. Raman Chawla who is attached to the appellant no. 1 / Tagore Heart Care and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. The appellant No. 2 examined her clinically on 1.09.99. He conducted ECHO test. He noticed that there was possibility of blockages which needed appropriate confirmation and medical treatment. He advised that she shall be admitted in the hospital for conducting Angiography.

3. The complainant was allergic to almost all the antibiotics except few of them like Pelox, analgesic, Voveran etc. It was decided with consent of the complainant’s son that Angiography will be conducted on 2.09.1999.

4. The case of the complainant as unfolded, from the pleadings and the record, is that the appellants did not follow scheduled time for performance of the Angiography. She was kept starved for whole night prior to the day of Angiography and though it was to be performed in the morning hours, oral message was communicated that the procedure would be performed in the noon. While conducting the Angiography procedure, she felt severe pain in the abdomen. She immediately brought such fact to the notice of the appellant no. 2. He ignored her complaint of pain and continued with the procedure of Angiography. After the procedure was completed, she was shifted to the recovery room. Angiogram showed LAD artery blockage to the extent of 95%. Though the appellant no. 2 took permission of her son for performance of PTCA or angioplasty for removal of the blockage yet it was given up by in the midway after the 15 – 20 minutes on the ground that she was allergic to many drugs. She was shifted to the ICU. She suffered severe pains throughout the night yet nobody attended her. In the next morning, i.e., on 03.09.1999, the appellant no. 2 alongwith a senior Doctor – Dr. Suri examined her. Dr. Suri noticed that pulse of her right leg was practically absent and as such reprimanded the appellant no. 2. She was discharged on 08.09.1999 from the hospital. She consulted Dr. Trehan of the Escorts Heart Institute, Delhi. She was admitted in Escorts Heart Institute at Delhi on 13.09.1999. Another Angiography was conducted at the Escort Heart Institute through radial artery of the right arm with a view to locate the extension of dissection of Aorta. Dr. Trehan expressed opinion that the Aorta dissection has taken place during the Angiography procedure done by the appellant no. 2 at the appellant no. 1 hospital and that was iatrogenic in nature. However, she was given due treatment by a Senior Cardiologist. She was subjected to angioplasty on 18.10.1999. She was discharged after the hospitalisation of ten (10) days.

5. The complainant alleged medical negligence on the part of the appellants while conducting the Angiography on 2.09.99, which resulted into dissection of Aorta. She alleged that she was required to obtain further treatment and went through angioplasty at the Escorts Heart Institute due to the sheer negligent act of appellant no. 2. She was required to incur heavy expenditure for obtaining further treatment and undergoing of the angioplasty. She suffered severe pain due to the dissection of Aorta. Consequently, she claimed compensation of Rs.11 lakhs from the appellants.

6. Both the appellants denied truth into the allegations made by the complainant. They d