(1.) The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant in CD 64/2003 before the District Forum, Guntur, where under, compensation was claimed under different heads to a tune of Rs.8,71,760/- from OP 1 hospital on the ground of medical negligence in performing Bypass surgery on 27.3.2002 and while conducting the operation the doctor had operated only one artery instead of three arteries as assured and the remaining arteries were substituted by Angio Patch Plasty as result of which he had to again undergo Bypass surgery in OP 2 hospital incurring huge expenditure as such the act or omission amounts to deficiency in service. The impugned order of dismissal of the complaint is assailed as erroneous and sought to be set aside.
(2.) According to the complainant on 23.2.2002 he felt pain in heart so he consulted a private doctor who had taken ECG and advised him to consult cardiologist so he immediately joined as in patient in OPs hospital where after conducing clinical tests he was advised to undergo Angiogram and thereby he joined in the hospital on 8.3.2002 and underwent angiogram after paying required fee. Basing on the angiogram report he was advised to undergo heart operation. OP 1 in its discharge summary had noted the details for performing bypass surgery. He joined in the hospital on 27.3.2002 and he was performed Bypass surgery and as per the findings mentioned in the Discharge Summary dated 08.03.2002 Bypass surgery to be done, i.e., three arteries are to be operated as there were blocks. But the Bypass surgery was done only to one right artery by replacing a new artery, whereas, for other two arteries Angio Patch Plasty which is not recommended, since he had crossed the age above 50 years. Again, some time thereafter the complainant had no proper pumping of blood so he was admitted in OP1s hospital on 26.12.2002 for undergoing Angiogram test and discharged. The complainant was vexed with the OPs service and he consulted OP 2 hospital at Hyderabad for post-operative correction where he was again operated on 7.1.2003 for left mammary artery and left anterior clot which was successful one.
(3.) OP 1 denied the allegations and filed the version in which he has explained the details of the pre and post operative care taken towards the patient so also the procedure that was adopted as per the protocol on scientific methods by discharging duties with utmost good faith so as to relieve pain and suffering to the patient. While denying the allegations of substandard performance, lack of skill and deficiency attributed it is stated that Dr. Suresh is M.D. of the hospital who himself is a doctor worked in USA for 7 years and set up a sophisticated hospital with a team of expert doctors viz., Dr. Stephen and Dr. D. Raju, S. Layer who are experts in the field of cardiology. The details of pre and post operative treatment given at the time of operation are noted in para 7 to 11 of the version. It is further stated that the procedure was explained to the patient and after taking consent the operation was done on 26.12.2002. Later the patient was again admitted for repeat coronary Angiography which was performed which showed the RCA graft with excellent retrograde filing of the entire left system. However, the area of LMCA Angioplasty was completely occluded with abrupt cut offs with proximal and distal and vague outline of the blocked area which indicate of reasonable recent thrombus ( blood clot ) formation. Dr. Shatapathy, the consultant doctor along with Dr. M.P. Tripathy advised the patient to undergo the procedure of percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty with Stenting of the blocked area of the LMCA which had a good proximal and distal patent segments by extending concessional expenditure for the said procedure. But the patient got discharged himself on 27.12.2002. However, the discharge summary given by OP 2 hospital itself shows that the pumping rate is 30 to 34 % while the same pumping rate ( LVEF) was 40% as late as on 16.12.2002.