What
is Law
     Right
of Doctors
     Responsibilities    
Negligence    
Consents     Records    
Cases

       

Legislations    
Medical
Ethics
      FAQ’s

   

    

Cardiothoracic
Surgeon


      

  • V.
    Chandrasekar v. Malar Hospitals Ltd.


    2001 (1) CPR 628

       

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -
    Sections 12 and 17 – Medical
    negligence – Complainant underwent
    Coronary Angioplastry plus Stenting to
    LAD at opp. Party hospital but was not
    relieved of pain – He underwent then
    by-pass surgery in other hospital -
    Deficiency in service alleged in
    diagnosis and refusal on part of opp.
    Party to deliver the cassettes and
    photographs of Angiogram and
    Angioplastry alongwith report despite
    demand – Diagnosis made at opp. Party
    hospital was that complainant had a
    “Single Vessel Disease”
    whereas diagnosis made at other
    hospital was “Severe Triple
    Vessel Coronary Disease” – Wrong
    diagnosis and consequent treatment
    itself could not amount to negligence
    or deficiency in service – Complainant
    had been provided discharge summary
    providing all details – Non return of
    cassettes, photographs did not amount
    to deficiency in service.

    (Paras 11 to 14)

      

    Result : Complaint dismissed

      

    Case referred:

    1. Poona Medical Foundation
    Ruby Hall Clinic v. Marutirao L.
    Tikare and Anr, National Commission
    and Supreme Court on 

        Consumer Cases
    1986-96 page 2656 (NS). (Para 13)

         

    Counsel for the parties:

    For the Complainant : Mr. C.
    R.Sathindran, Advocate.

     

    For the Opp. Party : None

     

    IMPORTANT POINT

     

    Wrong diagnosis and consequent
    treatment given by doctor itself
    cannot amount to negligence or
    deficiency in service.

      

    ORDER

    M. S. Janarthanam, President -
    This action has come before us for
    admission today.

        

    2. We heard arguments of
    learned Counsel Mr.C. R. Sathindran.

      

    3. We perused the avernments in
    the complaint and also the documents
    filed alongwith it.

      

    4. Such perusal reveals the
    following factors:

      

    The complainant is one V. Chandrasekar.
    On 2-8-1999 he was stated to have
    developed sever chest pain. He got
    admitted in Malar Hospital Ltd.
    (opposite party). He was admitted as
    an inpatient in the said hospital for
    a period of five days.

    As per the diagnosis, he underwent
    Coronary Angiogram on 3-8-1999. On
    5-8-1999, he underwent Coronary
    Angioplastry plus Stenting to LAD at
    the opposite party`s hospital. He was
    then discharged on 9-8-1999.

     

    He was not relieved of the pain and
    suffering even after such treatment.
    Again, he was re-admitted in the
    opposite party`s hospital on 8-9-1999.
    He was put in the ICU for a day and
    then shifted to the ward. He was
    stated to have been releived of the
    pain. Later, it was found out that the
    relief was only temporary.

     

    He had paid a sum of Rs.88,250/- for
    Angiogram and Angioplastry at the
    opposite party`s hospital. This apart,
    he also paid a sum of Rs.41,400/- as
    hospital charges for hospitalisation
    for a period between 2-8-1999 and
    9-8-1999. This apart, he had to pay a
    sum of Rs.4,096/- when he was
    re-admitted in the opposite party`s
    hospital on 8-9-1999. 

      

    Despite the treatment taken at the
    opposite party`s hospital at
    exorbitant expenses, he was not
    relieved of the pain and sufferings.
    Consequently, he was not satisfied
    with the treatment given in the said
    hospital He got admitted in Apollo
    Hospital on 3-3-2000 as he again had
    severe chest pain. There, he was
    advised to undergo by-pass surgery. As
    per the advice, he had undergone the
    by-pass surgery on 11-3-2000.

       

    5. The opposite party hospital
    refused to give the cassettes and
    photographs of the Angiogram and
    Angioplastry alongwith the report
    despite demand emerging therefore from
    him. He would say, a duty is cast upon
    the opposite party hospital to furnish
    such details. The non-functioning of
    such details, he would say, would
    tantamount to negligence or deficiency
    in service on their part. 

      

    6. The diagnosis made at the
    opposite party`s hospital, he would
    say, was wrong. The diagnosis,
    according to them, was that the
    complainant had a “Single Vessel
    Disease” whereas the diagnosis of
    the Apollo Hospital was the he had
    “Severe Triple Vessel Coronary
    Disease.” The complainant,
    therefore, would say that the
    diagnosis and treatment given at the
    opposite party`s hospital were wrong
    and consequently he had to suffer and
    get treatment again at a different
    hospital namely, Apollo Hospital.

      

    7. Because of the opposite
    party`s hospital refusal to furnish
    the cassettes, photographs of
    Angiogram, he had to suffer
    irreparable injury, mental agony and
    damages in that he had to not only
    incur expenses for the Angiogram again
    but also because of the wrong
    treatment / wrong diagnosis given by
    the opposite party he has to suffer
    injury and damages.

     

    8. He would claim the amounts
    as below from the opposite party:

      

    1. To pay the total medical expenses
    at

    opposite party`s hospital
    Rs.1,33,746.00

    2. Medical expenses at Apollo Hospital
    Rs.2,90,061.00

    3. Damage for mental agony and
    hardship Rs.2,25,000.00

    Total Rs.6,48,807.00 

       

    He would also claim interest @ 25% on
    the said amount till payment.

       

    9. The opposite party hospital,
    of course, furnished a discharge
    summary containing the details of
    investigation, diagnosis, treatment
    given besides the advice on discharge.

      

    10. From the perusal of the
    factors as above, it is thus
    abundantly crystal clear that
    according to the complainant that
    wrong diagnosis and consequent
    treatment and refusal to give
    cassettes and photographs of the
    Angiogram and Angioplastry alongwith
    the report amounts to deficiency in
    service on the part of the opposite
    party`s hospital.

          

    11. No doubt true it is as
    getting revealed from the records
    filed that the opposite party
    hospital, on diagnosis, found out that
    the complainant had Single Vessel
    Disease but on the contrary, it was
    diagnosed by the different hospital
    namely, Apollo Hospital that he had
    severe Triple Vessel Coronary Disease.
    Diagnosis is nothing but forming an
    opinion on examination of the patients
    suffering from a disease. Diagnosis
    may consist of physical as well as
    mechanical examination. Only on such
    examination, the opinion is formed as
    to the disease from which the patient
    is suffering. The opinion formed or
    diagnosed may vary from one medical
    expert to another medical expert just
    like the difference of opinion as
    expressed by the Lawyer regarding the
    factual matrix in the light of legal
    provisions. Only on the diagnosis,
    treatment is given. As respects wrong
    diagnosis and consequent treatment
    given, on occasions more than one,
    superior Forums had expressed, cannot
    at all amount to negligence or
    deficiency in service on the part of
    such professional

        

    12. The other negligence or
    deficiency in service attributed on
    the part of the opposite party
    hospital is relatable to its refusal
    to hand over the cassettes and photos
    of the Angiogram. Such refusal, we
    rather feel, would not also amount to
    deficiency in service on their part
    when especially the complainant had
    been furnished with a discharge
    summary containing the relevant
    details such as investigation,
    diagnosis, treatment given and advice
    on discharge.

       

    13. In Poona Medical Foundation
    Ruby Hall Clinic v. Marutirao L.
    Titkare & Anr. It was laid down by
    the National Commission that the
    non-supply to the complainant of the
    copies of the hospital records
    relatable to or pertaining to the
    surgical operation, can by no stretch
    of imagination to be construed as
    negligence unless there was a legal
    duty cast upon the hospital to furnish
    such documents to the complainant,
    patient. In the instant case, no
    material had been placed on record to
    point out that the complainant was
    legally entitled to have the copies of
    the document to be furnished to him.

      

    14. For the reasons as above,
    we are of the view that the factors
    getting revealed by way of averments
    incorporated in the complaint as well
    as the documents filed alongwith it do
    not at all prima facie point out any
    negligence of deficiency in service on
    the part of the opposite party
    hospital requiring further enquiry
    into the matter by taking the
    complaint on file.

        

    The complaint, as such deserves
    rejected I limine. We accordingly do
    so.

        

    Complaint dismissed.

      


         


 Back

  


    




 

     

    
     

What is Law     Right of Doctors     Responsibilities     Negligence     Consents     Records     Cases
       
Legislations     Medical Ethics      FAQ’s

   
    

Cardiothoracic Surgeon
      

  • V. Chandrasekar v. Malar Hospitals Ltd.
    2001 (1) CPR 628
       
    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17 – Medical negligence – Complainant underwent Coronary Angioplastry plus Stenting to LAD at opp. Party hospital but was not relieved of pain – He underwent then by-pass surgery in other hospital - Deficiency in service alleged in diagnosis and refusal on part of opp. Party to deliver the cassettes and photographs of Angiogram and Angioplastry alongwith report despite demand – Diagnosis made at opp. Party hospital was that complainant had a “Single Vessel Disease” whereas diagnosis made at other hospital was “Severe Triple Vessel Coronary Disease” – Wrong diagnosis and consequent treatment itself could not amount to negligence or deficiency in service – Complainant had been provided discharge summary providing all details – Non return of cassettes, photographs did not amount to deficiency in service.
    (Paras 11 to 14)
      
    Result : Complaint dismissed
      
    Case referred:
    1. Poona Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic v. Marutirao L. Tikare and Anr, National Commission and Supreme Court on 
        Consumer Cases 1986-96 page 2656 (NS). (Para 13)
         
    Counsel for the parties:
    For the Complainant : Mr. C. R.Sathindran, Advocate.
     
    For the Opp. Party : None
     
    IMPORTANT POINT
     
    Wrong diagnosis and consequent treatment given by doctor itself cannot amount to negligence or deficiency in service.
      
    ORDER
    M. S. Janarthanam, President - This action has come before us for admission today.
        
    2. We heard arguments of learned Counsel Mr.C. R. Sathindran.
      
    3. We perused the avernments in the complaint and also the documents filed alongwith it.
      
    4. Such perusal reveals the following factors:
      
    The complainant is one V. Chandrasekar. On 2-8-1999 he was stated to have developed sever chest pain. He got admitted in Malar Hospital Ltd. (opposite party). He was admitted as an inpatient in the said hospital for a period of five days.
    As per the diagnosis, he underwent Coronary Angiogram on 3-8-1999. On 5-8-1999, he underwent Coronary Angioplastry plus Stenting to LAD at the opposite party`s hospital. He was then discharged on 9-8-1999.
     
    He was not relieved of the pain and suffering even after such treatment. Again, he was re-admitted in the opposite party`s hospital on 8-9-1999. He was put in the ICU for a day and then shifted to the ward. He was stated to have been releived of the pain. Later, it was found out that the relief was only temporary.
     
    He had paid a sum of Rs.88,250/- for Angiogram and Angioplastry at the opposite party`s hospital. This apart, he also paid a sum of Rs.41,400/- as hospital charges for hospitalisation for a period between 2-8-1999 and 9-8-1999. This apart, he had to pay a sum of Rs.4,096/- when he was re-admitted in the opposite party`s hospital on 8-9-1999. 
      
    Despite the treatment taken at the opposite party`s hospital at exorbitant expenses, he was not relieved of the pain and sufferings. Consequently, he was not satisfied with the treatment given in the said hospital He got admitted in Apollo Hospital on 3-3-2000 as he again had severe chest pain. There, he was advised to undergo by-pass surgery. As per the advice, he had undergone the by-pass surgery on 11-3-2000.
       
    5. The opposite party hospital refused to give the cassettes and photographs of the Angiogram and Angioplastry alongwith the report despite demand emerging therefore from him. He would say, a duty is cast upon the opposite party hospital to furnish such details. The non-functioning of such details, he would say, would tantamount to negligence or deficiency in service on their part. 
      
    6. The diagnosis made at the opposite party`s hospital, he would say, was wrong. The diagnosis, according to them, was that the complainant had a “Single Vessel Disease” whereas the diagnosis of the Apollo Hospital was the he had “Severe Triple Vessel Coronary Disease.” The complainant, therefore, would say that the diagnosis and treatment given at the opposite party`s hospital were wrong and consequently he had to suffer and get treatment again at a different hospital namely, Apollo Hospital.
      
    7. Because of the opposite party`s hospital refusal to furnish the cassettes, photographs of Angiogram, he had to suffer irreparable injury, mental agony and damages in that he had to not only incur expenses for the Angiogram again but also because of the wrong treatment / wrong diagnosis given by the opposite party he has to suffer injury and damages.
     
    8. He would claim the amounts as below from the opposite party:
      
    1. To pay the total medical expenses at
    opposite party`s hospital Rs.1,33,746.00
    2. Medical expenses at Apollo Hospital Rs.2,90,061.00
    3. Damage for mental agony and hardship Rs.2,25,000.00
    Total Rs.6,48,807.00 
       
    He would also claim interest @ 25% on the said amount till payment.
       
    9. The opposite party hospital, of course, furnished a discharge summary containing the details of investigation, diagnosis, treatment given besides the advice on discharge.
      
    10. From the perusal of the factors as above, it is thus abundantly crystal clear that according to the complainant that wrong diagnosis and consequent treatment and refusal to give cassettes and photographs of the Angiogram and Angioplastry alongwith the report amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party`s hospital.
          
    11. No doubt true it is as getting revealed from the records filed that the opposite party hospital, on diagnosis, found out that the complainant had Single Vessel Disease but on the contrary, it was diagnosed by the different hospital namely, Apollo Hospital that he had severe Triple Vessel Coronary Disease. Diagnosis is nothing but forming an opinion on examination of the patients suffering from a disease. Diagnosis may consist of physical as well as mechanical examination. Only on such examination, the opinion is formed as to the disease from which the patient is suffering. The opinion formed or diagnosed may vary from one medical expert to another medical expert just like the difference of opinion as expressed by the Lawyer regarding the factual matrix in the light of legal provisions. Only on the diagnosis, treatment is given. As respects wrong diagnosis and consequent treatment given, on occasions more than one, superior Forums had expressed, cannot at all amount to negligence or deficiency in service on the part of such professional
        
    12. The other negligence or deficiency in service attributed on the part of the opposite party hospital is relatable to its refusal to hand over the cassettes and photos of the Angiogram. Such refusal, we rather feel, would not also amount to deficiency in service on their part when especially the complainant had been furnished with a discharge summary containing the relevant details such as investigation, diagnosis, treatment given and advice on discharge.
       
    13. In Poona Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic v. Marutirao L. Titkare & Anr. It was laid down by the National Commission that the non-supply to the complainant of the copies of the hospital records relatable to or pertaining to the surgical operation, can by no stretch of imagination to be construed as negligence unless there was a legal duty cast upon the hospital to furnish such documents to the complainant, patient. In the instant case, no material had been placed on record to point out that the complainant was legally entitled to have the copies of the document to be furnished to him.
      
    14. For the reasons as above, we are of the view that the factors getting revealed by way of averments incorporated in the complaint as well as the documents filed alongwith it do not at all prima facie point out any negligence of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party hospital requiring further enquiry into the matter by taking the complaint on file.
        
    The complaint, as such deserves rejected I limine. We accordingly do so.
        
    Complaint dismissed.
      

         

 Back
  

    

 

By |2022-07-20T16:42:34+00:00July 20, 2022|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Doctor’s Favour / Cardiothoracic Surgeon

About the Author: