Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Baby Shaistha Through LRs. – Petitioner
versus
M/s. Wockhardt Heart Centre and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.4414 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 14/08/2013 in Appeal No. 3529/2013 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 2.7.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M. Marpu, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Nemo
For the Respondent No.2:Ms. Aditi Dani, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3:Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Advocate
For the Respondent No.4:Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Affidavits and 2 expert opinions opined that Respondent No. 2 performed surgery as per standard medical protocol and Petitioner died due to sequel of encephalopathy and not because of medical negligence.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 58(1)(b)) – Revision Petition - Against the Order dt. 14.08.2013 of the State Commission – Petitioner had congenital heart disease and underwent Cardiac Surgery at Respondent No. 1 Hospital where she developed cerebral malaria with typhoid, shifted to Respondent No. 3 hospital – Petitioner diagnosed with cerebral malaria, kidney failure and hepatitis, was discharged on 20.04.2007 – Distt. Forum directed Respondent No. 3 to refund Rs. 62,000/- towards the medical charges to Petitioner with interest@6% p.a. from date of Complaint but dismissed complaint against Respondent no. 1, 2 and 4 – Appeal filed by Petitioner before State Commission for compensation enhancement but during appeal Petitioner expired - Affidavits and 2 expert opinions opined that Respondent No. 2 performed surgery as per standard medical protocol and Petitioner died due to sequel of encephalopathy - Charge of medical negligence against Respondents does not stand proved.
Held: It is pertinent to note that affidavits and two expert opinions are on record, one by Dr. B. T. Prasad Rao, Professor and Head of Cardiology Department, who opined that the Opposite Party No. 2 performed surgery as per standard medical protocol and the patient died due to sequel of encephalopathy. Another expert Dr. N. C. Joshi, the Paediatrician, categorically stated that the patient was adequately investigated before the cardiac surgery. He also stated that the treatment of cerebral malaria was given as per standard. We do not find any lapses or dereliction of duty of care during treatment of malaria.
In view of the entire position described above, it is held that the charge of medical negligence against the opposite parties –doctors does not stand proved. (Paras 12 & 14)
Result: Revision Petition Dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 3529 of 2013, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 126 of 2008 was affirmed.
2. For the convenience the Parties are referred as in the Complaint filed before the District Forum.
3. The facts in brief are that the patient Baby Shaistha, for her congenital heart disease, underwent Cardiac Surgery at Wockhardt Heart Centre (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital”) on 07.03.2007 and in the hospital during the course of her treatment, on 16.03.2007, she developed Celebral Malaria with enteric fever (Typhoid). On 17.03.2007 she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 3”) for paediatric ICU care under Pediatrician, Dr. K. Satyanarayan (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 4). The patient was diagnosed as post-operative complications like cerebral malaria, kidney failure and hepatitis. She was discharged on 20.04.2007. Being aggrieved by the negligence during treatment from the all Opposite Parties, the minor Complainant filed a Complaint before District Forum through her father.
4. The Opposite Parties have filed their respective written versions and denied the negligence. They submitted that the Cardiac surgery was uneventful and development of malaria is not related to the cardiac surgery.
5. The District Forum after hearing the Parties partially allowed the Complaint against the Opposite Party No. 3 and directed to refund Rs. 62,000/- collected towards the medical charges, to the complainant with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Complaint. The Complaint against the other Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 2 and 4 was dismissed.
6. The Appeal filed by the Complainant for enhancement of compensation was dismissed by the State Commission.
7. Being aggrieved the Complainant filed this revision petition. During pendency of this Revision Petition Baby Shaistha expired on 14.04.2016 and the legal heirs were taken on record.
8. We have heard the arguments from the learned counsel for both the sides. None present for Opposite Party No. 1. Perused the entire material on record inter alia, the discharge summary of the Wockhardt Hospital and Kamineni Hospital. The short delay in filing this Revision Petition is condoned.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The point for our consideration is that, during post-operative period the baby contracted malaria; was it due to negligence during Cardiac surgery or the care thereafter?
10. If baby Shaistha contracted malaria prior to admission (05.03.2007) to the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital then it would have been detected during pre-operative tests. However, the patient was not exhibiting fever or any symptoms of malaria; therefore during pre-operative check-up the test for malaria was not advised.
11. From the facts on record it is clear that the Opposite Party No. 2 diagnosed the patient as suffering from Cyanotic congenital heart disease with Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD) and Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA) with severe pulmonary hypertension. The Opposite Party No. 2 explained the risk of mortality / morbidity to the parents of the patient and performed VSD closure and PDA interruption (Transpulmonary) on 07.03.2007. The surgery was uneventful. Thus the congenital defects of the child were surgically corrected. Thereafter, the patient was given proper ICU Care. In the meantime, on 13.03.2007, she had spike of fever, therefore, blood culture alongwith the central ve
