Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
Suresh Chandra Parakh – Complainant
versus
Dr. Naresh Trehan and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.576 of 2016
Decided on 29.3.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: In person (Through Video Conferencing)
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shyel Trehan, Advocate, Mr. Kanak Bose, Advocate, Mr. Rohan Poddar, Advocate
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Medical Negligence – not attributable – to the facts of the case - The medical record clearly establishes that the surgical team took a decision that the RCA was not clinically graftable and as no osteal plugging or no significant LCX disease, the LCX graft was not needed, the intervention was not done - The Committee, in its final opinion, held that the treatment provided at Medanta Hospital was optimal and reasonable – Therefore, the mode of treatment and procedure adopted by the OP was as per the standard of practice - On facts, the opinion of the board of experts from AIIMS and law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, in my view, the Complainant failed to prove negligence of the OPs. The medical negligence is not conclusively attributable to the Ops - The Complaint is dismissed. [Paras 7 to 14]
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
The Present Complaint has been filed under section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Suresh Chandra Parekh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) against Dr. Naresh Trehan & Medanta, The Medicity (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Parties’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,25,68,000/-
2. On 31.03.2014 The Complainant Suresh Chandra Parekh, aged 74 years visited Medanta Hospital (OP-2) with problems of Angina & heaviness in chest. He was admitted on next day i.e. 01.04.2014 and Coronary Angiography (CAG) was done. It revealed “Native Triple Vessel Disease (TVD)” consisting of LAD having 100% Blockage, LCX as Dominant vessel having Two Blockages-80 % & 50%. Thereafter, Dr. Trehan (OP-1) advised the Complainant for “Bypass Surgery” and told that he would perform the surgery. Accordingly, on 07.04.2014 surgery was performed by OP-1. It was alleged that only one blockage (LAD) was By-passed and the remaining two blockages (LCX) were left untouched. It was further alleged that OP-1 never informed the Complainant about one vessel by-pass instead of three, neither before nor after the surgery. After removal of stiches on 21.04.2014, he was permitted to travel back to his home town at Bhopal. On 24.04.2014, the Complainant felt breathlessness and was admitted to Akshay Hospital, Bhopal. There, the doctors opined that it could be due to after effect of surgery. Since the problem continued, the Complainant went to OP-2 on 11.06.2014 and some tests were conducted. Everything was found good. Subsequently, again on 17.06.2014 night, the Complainant felt breathlessness and heaviness in chest and was admitted to Bansal Hospital, Bhopal. The doctors informed him that he suffered heart attack. Thereafter, due to repeated problem of breathlessness Angiography was done on 05.07.2014 at Bansal Hospital which revealed two blockages 100% and 75%. An emergency Angioplasty was performed and two stents were inserted. The Complainant was discharged on 08.07.2014.
3. Being aggrieved due to the gross negligence and deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the Consumer Compliant under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission and prayed compensation amounting to Rs. 2,25,68,000/- from the Opposite Parties.
4. The Opposite Parties filed their Written Version denying the allegations of medical negligence. It was submitted that the Complaint was filed without complete medical record and the CD of angiography conducted at Bansal Hospital. Therefore, it was difficult to ascertain the actual disease progression and the medical treatment received by the Complainant at other places after discharge from OP-2. The Complainant has claimed an exaggerated compensation to bring the Complainant within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The patient received the highest standard of care, expertise and post-operative care from the OPs, with reasonable skill and competence in the interest of the Complainant. The OPs filed entire medical record.
5. Heard the arguments through hybrid mode. The Complainant argued in person through video-conferencing and the learned Senior Counsel for the OPs argued the matter physically. They have reiterated the facts and their evidence. Perused the material on record, inter alia, the Medical Record and gave thoughtful consideration. Both the sides have reiterated their evidence and placed the medical literature and AHA guidelines.
6. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant was a known case and under treatment of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD). He was hypertensive (since 1990) and post CABG (in year 1983) and post Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA). He was a reformed tobacco abuser and consumes alcohol occasionally. On 31.03.2014, at 6.45 pm, the Complainant was seen by the Cardiologist - Dr.
