The duty of care in medical procedures requires proper monitoring of oxygen supply, and negligence occurs when these standards are not met, leading to patient harm.

1. These two First Appeals (FAs) have been filed under S.19 of Consumer ProtectionAct 1986, against the order dated 4.11.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as the ˜State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 18 of 2012. FA 1722 of 2016 has been filed by the Appellant,who was OP - 1 before the State Commission in the said CC 18 of 2012, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 4.11.2016 of the State Commission. FA 1657 of 2017 has been filed by the Appellants, who were the Complainants in the said CC 18 of 2012, inter alia praying for enhancement of compensation granted by State Commission from Rs. 18,00,000 to Rs.40,10,000 along with interest @18% p.a. from date of filing of complaint till the date of actual payment by Respondents. As both the Appeals have been filed against the same order of the State Commission, parties involved are the same, and issues for consideration / determination are related, these are being taken up together under this order. However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal (FA) No. 1722 of 2016 is treated as the lead case and fact senumerated herein under are taken from FA 1722 of 2016. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) in both the FAs on 15.05.2017 for (FA / 1722/2016) and on 1.9.2017 for(FA / 1657/2017) respectively. Both parties filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 11.5.2023 and 19.5.2023 respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FAs, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that:
(i) The complainants in this case are the wife and sons of the deceased (hereinafter also referred to as the Patient). On 3.6.2009, the deceased visited M/s. Anusha Critical Care with a complaint of a heart stroke, where he was advised to undergo bypass surgery.
(ii) On 24.6.2009, the complainant underwent bypass surgery at the hospital of OP - 1,performed by OP - 2. However, during the surgery, there was irregular and improper supply of oxygen, resulting in blood clotting in the vessels that carry blood to the brain.As a consequence, the brain suffered dysfunction, and the deceased fell into unconsciousness / coma right in the operation theatre. To support his breathing, the deceased was put on a ventilator. Ultimately, the patient died on 30.7.2009.

3. Complainants filed consumer complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency of service / medical negligence on the part of OPs and seeking compensation of Rs. 40.00 lakhs. vide Order dated 4.11.2016, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed OP - 1Hospital to pay compensation of Rs. 18,00,000 to the complainants together with costs of Rs. 5,000. Complaint against OP - 2 was dismissed.

4. Appellant in FA 1722/2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Hospital) have challenged the Order of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) The State Commission failed to acknowledge that the patient suffered a stroke, which is a well - known and inherent risk associated with bypass surgery. The risk of stroke was adequately explained to the patient and their family, and all necessary and medically feasible measures were taken by the OPs to prevent such an occurrence.
(ii) The occurrence of the stroke was a result of a clot formed due to the presence of plaque, fat material, or debris, leading to the blockage of blood vessels supplying the brain. It was not due to insufficient oxygen supply, as wrongly alleged by the complainant.
(iii) That the complainant did not present any expert testimony on the subject matter, nor did the State Commission seek the opinion of any expert to aid in reaching an accurate conclusion.
(iv) The State Commission failed to take into account the anaesthesia char