Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, PRESIDENT, Bharatkumar Pandya, MEMBER
Smt. Suman D. Mane (Dead) Through LRs – Appellant
Versus
Director Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic Pune, Maharashtra – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 207 OF 2013 | LA. No.1129 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Joshi, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Sudeep Nargolkar, Advocate, Dr. (Ms.) Anuja Athale, Ms. Manjusha Kulkarni, Legal Advisor
Medical negligence claims must meet established standards of care, with the burden of proof resting on the complainants to evidence negligence; adherence to protocols and appropriate care must be demonstrated.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Allegations of medical negligence - Dismissal of complaint at admission stage - State Commission found no medical negligence attributable to respondents - Appellants failed to demonstrate any breach of duty or standard of care as per Bolam Test - Court affirmed lower findings and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 30, 60)
(B) Medical Negligence - Respondents provided adequate care and attention as required in the circumstances - Documentation and response by hospital affirmed appropriate post-operative monitoring. (Paras 13, 40, 58)
(C) Burden of proof lies on complainants to substantiate claims - Unfulfilled allegations cannot establish a case of negligence. (Paras 7, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellants alleged medical negligence in the treatment of late Shri Dattajirao B. Mane, who suffered complications post-cardiac surgery leading to death. Complaints regarding lack of attention from the medical team were raised.
Findings of Court:
The State Commission concluded there was no concrete evidence of negligence and the treatment adhered to medical standards.
Issues: The main issues were whether the treatment met the requisite standards of care and if there was any negligence on the part of the medical personnel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Bolam Test was crucial in assessing medical negligence and upheld the findings of the lower court, confirming that the respondents acted within the standard of care expected.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
A.P. SAHI, J. (PRESIDENT)
1. The Appellants/Complainants preferred Complaint Case No.96/2011 before the SCDRC, Maharashtra, alleging medical negligence against the Respondents with regard to the treatment and care of late Shri Dattajirao B. Mane who is stated to be a practicing lawyer at Sangli, Maharashtra. He had complaints of chest congestion and breathlessness in September 2009 and was undergoing a treatment at Sangli with some Cardiologist and Neurophysician.
2. A right shoulder pain was experienced, for which late Mr. Mane thought it appropriate to take opinion from one Dr. Wadia and then with the Opposite Party Dr. Jagdish Hiremath of Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune. He was attended to by Dr. Hiremath to advise a Treadmill test which turned out to be positive and on the recommendations of Dr. Hiremath he was admitted in the Cardiac Care Unit of Ruby Hall Clinic and an angiography was planned on 22.10.2009 for being conducted on the next day i.e. 23.10.2009.
3. With the angiography performed it was found that the major arteries were blocked to the extent of 90% and since the same was incapable of being corrected by angioplasty, a Bypass surgery was advised.
4. The Bypass surgery were arranged to be performed by the Opposite Party Dr. V.R. Karmarkar and Dr. Chaitanya Raina in the same hospital and accordingly, various tests were carried out and on account being found fit to undergo the surgery, the Bypass surgery was performed on 24.10.2009.
5. The Bypass surgery was reported to be successful and therefore, for recovery, he was shifted to the recovery-room and he regained consciousness in the evening of 24.10.2009.
6. According to the Complainants, the patient was fully uncomfortable and on 27.10.2009, he was moved to the Coronary Care Unit on a wheel chair where he was administered liquids and some solid food. He continued in the Coronary Care Unit on 28th, 29th and 30th October, 2009 where he experienced distension of the stomach. The symptoms were complained of and on 31.10.2009 at about 01.30 a.m. he suffered a cardiac arrest from which he recovered and was revived. He was, however, on some ventilator support on 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th November, 2009 when it was informed to the Complainants that the patient was improving slowly but a portion of his small intestine had been paralyzed and there was a leak for which a surgery was proposed to rectify the blockage. The patient was in the recovery-room on 5th, 6th and 7th November, 2009 and no improvements were observed. The secretions in the chest and the stomach continued whereupon a CT Scan was carried out and on 07.11.2009 he suffered another cardiac arrest but was successfully revived.
7. On 08.11.2009, a surgery was performed to examine and rectify the defect in the intestine when a small part of the intestine was removed and then the patient was moved to the Intensive Care Unit where he remained on ventilator support. The patient remained in the ICU on 9th, 10th and 11th November, 2009 and fever was discoveredwhich was informed by the doctors due to some infection. On 12.11.2009, the patient was permitted to take fresh lime juice through the stomach tube but his condition remained weak and incoherent and he could not be removed from the ventilator. There was no fever on 14.11.2009 and the patient continuing on ventilator without any improvement in the general condition and finally on 15.11.2009, he suffered another cardiac arrest but could not be revived and was declared dead.
8. According to the Complainants, the sequence of events and the manner in which the treatment was carrying out and the patient attended to, the Complainants believed that the source of post-operative infection arose with the surgeries which were performed negligently or the lack of proper post-operative care and treatment in the hospital. The 20 days that the patient spent in the hospital has been narrated in the Complaint, an allegation was made against Dr. Hiremath for having been negligent by not attendin
