Patient Dies from Post-Operative Complications of CABG: Consumer Court Directs Apollo Hospital to Pay Rs 5 lakh Compensation

"When there are no circumstances no commanding evidence is there than cumulative effect is there and hospital staff and Doctor. behavior and non-established the whole treatment medicine, times by whom is not there and it was failure cannot be trace out hospital staff and doctor behavior can be taken cumulative fault and ultimately resulted to come to conclusion that there was a deficiency in nonperform proper duties and treatment given to the patient and ultimately patient was expire and result of in time treatment so I would like to allow this complaint," observed the Commission.

The patient, who was a retired executive of Food Corporation of India, had a history of back pain and occasional breathlessness for which he had undergone double vessel stenting at Narayana Hrudayalaya and later he was taken to the Apollo Hospital, Gandhinagar for treatment. The treating doctor was informed about the previous treatment and he was also informed about patient's complaint of cough, general weakness, regent complaint of constipation etc. over and above the chief complaint of pain which starts from back but ends at the chest.

It had been stated by the Complainants that even though the doctor advised for Coronary Artery Bye-pass Grafting (CABG), taking note of the history of the patient, the doctor advised for pathological investigations before venturing to surgery and therefore prescribed investigations like, WBC, SGPT, Bilirubin, and Serum Creatinin. However, the test results came out to be normal.

Also Read: Kidney Removed instead of Stone: Consumer Court holds hospital vicariously liable for medical negligence, directs Rs 11.23 lakh compensation

Consequently, CABG was performed and the doctor claimed that the operation was uneventful and following the operation, the patient was transferred to post-operative ward. On the 13^th evening, the patient started developing problem and even though it was reported to the on-duty doctor, no action was taken till the next day morning, when the relatives of the patient were informed that the patient had developed infection inside and they have aspirated chocolate brown colored fluid through Ryle's tube.

As the condition of the patient deteriorated, pathological tests were conducted and it suggested abnormality in the reports. Meanwhile, sonography of the chest was performed and at that time fluid like material had been observed near pleural. A second operation was performed as the doctors found that some part of the bowel had developed gangrene and there was no other option but to remove it surgically.

However, the condition of the patient deteriorated further and the complainants decided to shift the patient to another hospital after signing the Discharge Against Medical Advice letter. In the second hospital, despite the best efforts of the doctors, the patient died.

Contending that causing of gangrene followed by infection is a serious matter, the complainants approached the Consumer Court alleging medical negligence against the treating doctor and hospital and demanded Rs 15 lakh as compensation, Rs 1 lakh to his widowed wife and a refund of the entire amount spent by them at the Apollo Hospital (approximately Rs 8 lakh).

The hospital, on the other hand, denied all the allegations and pointed out that the complaint didn't sue all the doctors who had treated the deceased patient at three different hospitals. Further the hospital pointed out that the patient had taken "Discharge Against Medical Advice" and therefore, the complaints of medical negligence should be dropped against the hospital. It was further claimed by the hospitals that the treatment provided by them was correct and there was no deficiency of service and negligence on their part.

After listening to the contentions of both the sides, the State Consumer Court of Gujarat concluded that "necessary treatment is given by the hospital staff and doctor and it is their duty to treat the patient immediately and such treatment are not given as per the medical norms and patient ultimately loss his life for want of immediate treatment in time availed by the hospital to the patient and it suggest that service was duly given proper treatment are to be established through the documentary evidence which is normally a duty of the hospital to maintain, but no such answer is given on the point for was suppression document before the commission."

"Further I am of the opinion that in absence of family members, postoperative hospitalization in the ward, the patient under the effect of the medicine and he was not in a position to inform to concern attending staff and if the family, relative are with him than it might possible to draw attention regarding complaint of the patient in time, moreover if the arrangement for family member not remain with patient than it is high level liabilities to observe the patient in time and that is why failure in the case," stated the Commission.

The Commission also took note of the fact that the hospital didn't submit any documents which would indicate that the patient was given proper medicine to reduce the infection.

"That's why thereby however no document produce by the opponents side and itself suggest for the conclusion it is deficiency in service so far as doctor and hospital are concern and medical council of india has prescribe norms and internationally also medical records are expected to be well recorded and are to be safe guard than under such situation is to be in practice for the pre and post operation treatment here it is absent as we have discussed than naturally, I am incline to accept the argument advance on complainant side," clarified the Commission at this outset.

"Thereby I came to conclusion that when there are no circumstances no commanding evidence is there than cumulative effect is there and hospital staff and Doctor. behavior and non-established the whole treatment medicine, times by whom is not there and it was failure cannot be trace out hospital staff and doctor behavior can be taken cumulative fault and ultimately resulted to come to conclusion that there was a deficiency in nonperform proper duties and treatment given to the patient and ultimately patient was expire and result of in time treatment so I would like to allow this complaint," observed the Commission.

This partly allowing the complaint, the Gujarat State Consumer Court directed the Apollo Hospitals and the Insurance Company to pay Rs 5 lakhs as compensation along with 7% interest from the date of filing the complaint within 30 days of the order of the complaint.

To read the order of the Commission, click on the link below.