Bypass surgery patient rushed back to ICU within 12 hours of discharge: Consumer Court upholds Rs 3.1 lakh compensation against Mumbai Hospital

Mumbai: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) Madhya Pradesh, recently upheld an order directing a Mumbai-based hospital to pay Rs 3.10 lakh compensation for the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service in the treatment of a 77-year-old patient, who underwent heart surgery and had to be rushed back to the intensive care unit within 12 hours of his discharge.

Dismissing the appeals from both the hospital and the patient, the consumer court bench consisting of President Justice (retired) Sunita Yadav and Member Dr. Monika Malik affirmed a July 24, 2023 ruling by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Damoh, which had slapped the compensation on the hospital for deficiency in service

Case Background: 

The history of the case goes back to July, 2019 when the patient, a resident of Damoh, underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery at the Mumbai hospital- Asian Heart Institute and Research Centre, after blockages in all three of his coronary arteries were revealed in an angiography. After being treated in the hospital for two weeks, he was discharged on August 7, 2019.

Also Read: Vision loss not established, lens serial number mismatch on prescription amounts to unfair trade practice- Ophthalmologist slapped Rs 75k compensation

Lawtrend has reported that within 12 hours of leaving the hospital, the patient started experiencing severe breathing difficulties and his oxygen saturation levels dropped below 50 percent. Immediately, he was rushed back to the intensive care unit of the hospital on August 8.

Later, the patient filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Court, alleging that he was discharged prematurely despite his fragile health. Further, he alleged that he was subjected to negligent treatment and was overcharged.

The patient stated that even though initially quoted a package of approximately Rs 9 lakh, the hospital billed him Rs 14.85 lakh for his first admission, and an additional Rs 1.46 lakh was charged for the second emergency admission. He also alleged that the treating surgeon had ignored his complaints of severe pain and swelling in his right hand, which was allegedly caused by blood vessel damage, as revealed by a venous Doppler examination later.

On the other hand, the hospital argued that the patient was high-risk because of the pre-existing conditions, including diabetes, hypertension, weak kidneys, and a history of smoking.

The hospital claimed that the pre-existing complications extended his initial stay from the packaged seven to 14 days. This resulted in the higher bill. Stressing that the patient was treated as per standard medical protocols, the hospital also contended that the patient had to be rushed back to the hospital because of bronchospasm and a respiratory infection linked to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Observations by Consumer Court: 

While considering the matter, the State Commission observed that the hospital's own medical records contradicted its defence. The Commission also reviewed the first discharge summary issued by the hospital and noted that while the cardiovascular conditions of the patient were recorded, his respiratory system was consistently marked as normal, with no mention of any active lung infection.

Further, the Commission observed that even though the patient had been prescribed 21 medications upon discharge, none of them included antibiotics.

Apart from this, the Commission also noted that the second discharge summary did not document any history of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

It also noted that the clinical examinations conducted during the second admission also did not indicate any abnormalities in the respiratory system, while an HRCT chest scan suggested pulmonary interstitial oedema, not the infection that was claimed by the hospital.

Accordingly, the State Consumer Court concluded that the treating hospital lacked medical evidence to support its claims of a post-discharge respiratory infection. Agreeing that the patient should have been kept under longer observation, the Commission held that there was no error in the District Commission's ruling regarding a deficiency in service.

Meanwhile, the patient had also approached the State Commission seeking an increase in the compensation amount. However, the Commission declined the request and declared the existing award sufficient.

Also Read: Woman dies after post-delivery complications at Dholpur Hospital, family stages protest