IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The Hospital and the treating Doctor are jointly and severally liable for not having adhered to the standards of normal medical parlance.
2. The onus of sudden development harmful to the patient is on the Hospital.

M. Shreesha, Member—Aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2017, in Consumer Complaint No. 03 of 2014, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “the State Commission”), the Complainant preferred this Appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the ground that there was no negligence on behalf of the first Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) and also the second Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as “the treating Doctor”).

2. The facts in brief are that the Complainant’s wife namely, Rajini Srikande (hereinafter referred to as “the Patient”) visited the Hospital on 05.08.2013 with the Complaint of pain in the Right Flank since two days coupled with fever and vomiting. It was stated that she was admitted in the Hospital at about 9.30 p.m. and paid an amount of Rs.10,000/-. It was averred that as per the record got from Vijaya Diagnostic Centre dated 05.08.2013, the Patient had a Calculus measuring 12mm noted in Proximal Ureter causing moderate dilation of Pelvicalycal system of Right Kidney. A Complete urine examination was done and Protein was noticed in the urine. At the time of admission, her Hemoglobin was found to be 9.3gm% and total WBC count was at 26,800 cells/cumm as against the normal range of 4-11000 cells/cumm and she was diagnosed to have Right Upper Ureteric Calculus and was admitted for surgery. After preoperative work up and after pre-anesthetic checkup she was taken up for Right URS+DJ Stenting on 06.08.2013. But unfortunately, she expired on 07.08.2013 at about 1.45 am. It was averred that the surgery was not properly conducted and instead of local Anesthesia the Patient was administered general Anesthesia.

3. It was averred that in the death summary it was recoded as Cystoscopy + Right URS was done with Ureteric Catheter which revealed 9mm right upper Ureteric impacted Calculus. It was stated that Anesthesia was stared at 12.15 p.m. and ended at 12.45 p.m. and even the surgery was also started at 12.15 p.m. and ended at 12.45 p.m. It was noted from the intraoperative notes that URS was done but the Patient developed Bradycardia with Hypotension and therefore URS cell was abandoned and DJ stenting was also not done. The Patient was shifted to Critical Care Centre and ultimately she died of Cardio Respiratory Arrest secondary to sepsis and septic shock on 07.08.2013 at 1.45 a.m.

4. It was pleaded that the treating Doctor should not have given general Anesthesia having noted that the Renal Calculi were impacted and that there was pus formation which was seen in the scan. It was further pleaded that the Patient was not properly treated as she has developed Bradycardia and Hyper Tension. The Patient was not given proper care and prerequisite pre-investigative tests were not conducted prior to the surgery which resulted in the sudden death of the Patient. The Patient was 36 years old employed in HSBC drawing monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. On account of her premature death, the children who were minors suffered loss of their mother’s love and affection. A legal notice was issued on 07.11.2013 seeking compensation for the negligence for which the Hospital and treating Doctor replied vide letter date 31.12.2013 denying all the allegations. It was further averred that total DRS was done knowing fully well that Calculus was impacted and also there was pus formation at the spot and that there was protein in urea which caused sepsis and septic shock which would not have occurred if the total DRS was avoided by draining the pus and by inserting a Stent in the Ureter.

5. The Hospital and the treating Doctor filed their common Written Version stating that a minimum risk of Bradycardia and hypotension are also associated with any kind of Anesthesia and unfortunately the Patient developed Bradycardia and hypotension and expired. It was denied that th