IMPORTANT POINT
In complicated cases, without support of any expert’s opinion, complainant’s case of alleged medical negligence cannot be accepted only on basis of his affidavit or some entries in medical record.

V.R. Kingaonkar, Presiding Member— This appeal arises out of judgement and order rendered by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 1215/2001. By the impugned order, the complaint came to be dismissed.

2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of her complaint, the original complainant has preferred this appeal. She is wife of deceased Gunasegaran, who allegedly died during course of surgical treatment in the hospital of respondents, namely, Manipal Hospital, Bangalore.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant before the State Commission was that her husband – Gunasegaran, aged about 58 years was employee of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Bangalore. He was suffering from unstable angina and diabetes mellitus. He was being treated for coronary heart disease for period between 29.05.2001 to 05.06.2001 in the HAL’s Hospital. He was referred by the HAL Hospital to Manipal Hospital on 5.06.2001. Though, there was no emergency yet he was operated on 13.06.2001. The bypass grafting of two valves was done during course of the said operation. The grafting had failed due to coronary spasm. On the same day, for second time he was subjected to another operation without his or relative’s consent. He was operated for the third time on the next day, i.e., 14.06.2001 and was kept in ITU without closing the chest for about 12 hours. He was moved to operation theatre on 15.06.2001 for alleged removal of blood clot without taking consent of the patient or his relatives. In the course of surgical procedure, it was ultimately found that there was low cardiac output due to acute renal failure. Though dialysis procedure was used yet on 17.06.2001, Gunasegaran died on account of renal failure.

4. The complainant alleges that surgeon who performed the operation as Chief Cardiac Surgeon at Manipal Hospital, was not duly qualified as a super-specialist. The consent for all the surgeries had not been obtained from the patient or his relatives. The concerned Doctors did not take proper and reasonable care while operating deceased Gunasegaran. Though, there was no history of renal impairment prior to the admission of deceased Gunasegaran inManipal Hospital yet there was prognosis of renal failure / functioning during the surgical procedure. The multiple surgeries caused on the patient, without proper diagnosis and without due care, had resulted into low cardiac output and the kidney failure. Therefore, the Hospital and the Chief Surgeon of ManipalHospital were liable to indemnify the appellant (complainant). She, therefore, sought compensation of Rs.20 lakh from the original opposite party nos. 1 & 2. She also sought compassionate appointment on establishment of the HAL.

5. The contesting respondents, original opposite party nos. 1 & 2, resisted the complaint. They denied that there was negligence while conducting the operations. They submitted that the husband of the appellant was already suffering from several ailments and was recommended to undergo the surgery before about 3 years after he had complained of chest pain. He had avoided such surgical procedure, with due knowledge that the surgery was necessary. He preferred to take only conservative treatment at HAL Hospital. He was suffering from severe diabetes. He was informed of the risk involved in coronary bypass surgery. The operations were conducted with informed consent of the patient. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 further submitted that on 15.06.2001 an expert Nephrologist was consulted for treatment of renal failure and peritoneal dialysis was started. They submitted that due precaution and care was taken while conducting the emergency operations. According to them, the death occurred as a result of low cardiac output leading to acute renal failure. The deceased also suffered from a rare but well-known complication of coronary spasm which caused failure to salvage him in spite of 5 d