In medical negligence claims, especially involving high-risk surgeries, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish negligence through expert medical evidence; mere allegations without expert testimony or cross-examination of the treating physician are insufficient to prove deficiency of service.

(PER HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL)

1. The complaint is filed U/s.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.50,00,000/- towards for the refund of hospitalization and connected medical expenses; to pay damages of Rs.25,00,000/- for medical negligence; to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. The brief averments of the complaint and amended complaint are that Smt. N. Vijaya Lakshmi (hereinafter will be called as deceased) was diagnosed with post portum cardion myopathy and other heart related diseases; that she was advised for heart transplantation by the Opposite Party No.1 and after pre-evolution assured of her good health after the treatment; that the cost of the treatment was quoted at Rs.18,00,000/- for transplantation along with Rs.2,50,000/- for the previous balance amount payable; that all the Complainants are legal heirs of Smt. N. Vijaya Lakshmi; that the deceased and the Complainants belong to lower rung of the society; that the deceased was admitted on 20.03.2016 vide IP No.1607005922 under the treatment of Dr. P.V. Ramachandraraju; that she was treated in the hospital by Opposite Party No.2; that on 16.09.2016 the deceased was declared as dead at 4:02 PM, but the same was informed only in the night; that the patient during the hospitalization undergone battery of tests and huge amount was spent to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-; that the cause of death as per death summary is shown as sepsis and refractory shock.

3. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 informed at the time of diagnosis and admission, that after heart transplantation she would gradually become well and healthy; that the Opposite Parties have not taken required post-operative care, and for the said reasons she developed complications and even placed on ventilator; that she was in hospital from 23.07.2016, till her death on 16.09.2016; that without diagnosing nephrology related problems of the deceased, the operation was done and such problems were only informed to the Complainants subsequently; that due to high dosage of medicines and injections administered by the Opposite Parties she developed complications which led to her death attributable to the medical negligence; that legal notice was issued dated 13.02.2017 demanding damages of Rs.75,00,000/-, for which reply dated 25.02.2017 was given with false allegations. Complainants No.1 & 2 are the parents, Complainant No.3 & 4 are the brothers and Complainant No.5 & 6 are the minor children of the deceased.

4. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.1 which is adopted by Opposite Party No.2 are that the deceased aged about 35 years came to the Opposite Party No.1 hospital with complaints of difficulty in breathing even at rest, which is defined in medical terms as NYHA class-IV symptoms. With pregnancy related heart weakness in February, 2008, and since then she is on treatment with medication and when the heart pumping capacity became less in measured terms as Ejection Fraction (EF-23%) as against normal value of more than 55% frequently admitted in the hospital before coming to the Opposite Party No.1; that due to the said condition she resigned job and had difficulty in attending day to day activities for the last two years; that previously she consulted Doctors at CARE and APOLLO Hospitals and she was advised with heart transplant