Post-angiography hematoma- Consumer court comes to relief of cardiologist

Bhopal: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Madhya Pradesh, recently exonerated a Gwalior-based hospital and its doctor from allegations of deficiency in service while performing angiography in a patient, who allegedly developed a hematoma after the procedure.

It was observed by the State Consumer Court that a hematoma is a known complication of angiography, and its development cannot be interpreted as negligence.

The case history goes back to 2013 when the complainant with chest pain visited the treating hospital in Gwalior, and was advised angiography on 19.06.2013. The angiography was done through the femoral artery.

It was alleged that after a few hours of the procedure, the complainant observed pain and swelling in his thigh, which developed into an infected hematoma. Even though the complainant was discharged on 27.06.2013, his condition was not well, and thereafter he was admitted to Medenta Hospital, where allegedly Rs 4,03,305 were spent for his treatment.

The patient further alleged that the treating doctor and hospital did not perform the angiography in a proper manner, which led to the development of a hematoma, due to which the surgery of coronary bypass was delayed. Therefore, alleging a deficiency in service against the treating hospital and doctor, he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Court.

On the other hand, the treating doctor and hospital resisted the complaint and submitted that the complainant was admitted to their hospital on 19.06.2013 with complaints of chest pain for the last 10 years. Angiography was advised in order to see the extent of the blockage. After angiography, it was observed that there was a blockage in all three arteries of the patient's heart. Therefore, he was advised to undergo a Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG).

However, the complainant did not give any confirmation. Therefore, CABG could not be done, and the complainant was discharged from the hospital. With this, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

When the district commission dismissed the complaint, an appeal was made by the complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

It was argued by the complainant's counsel that the District Commission ignored their submissions and gave no findings with regard to the development of hematoma, on account of angiography performed negligently. Due to the development of the said hematoma, there was a delay in performing CABG in Medanta Hospital, since the hematoma had to be treated first.

Meanwhile, considering the matter, the State Consumer Court observed that undoubtedly the angiography was performed by the opposite parties and as per report, there was a blockage in all three arteries of his heart. After the discussion, he was advised of a CABG. However, the complainant alleged that the angiography performed by the opposite parties was not done properly, due to which he developed a hematoma in his leg, which ultimately delayed the CABG.

The State Consumer Court observed,

"We observe that hematoma is known complication of angiography and development of hematoma cannot be interpreted as negligence on part of the opposite parties. Also after angiography it was observed by the opposite parties that CABG is required to be done. It is not established that angiography was done by the opposite parties in improper manner. The complainant was discharged on request. There appears to be no negligence on part of the opposite parties in the matter."

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, the District Commission has rightly reached a conclusion that the complainant has not been able to establish deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. The District Commission has thus rightly dismissed the complaint," it further noted.

Accordingly, finding no illegality or infirmity in the order, the State Commission affirmed the District Consumer Court's order and dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/bhopal-scdrc-321932.pdf

Also Read: Eye hospital, surgeon get relief from medical negligence charges in lasik surgery case