The patient, a woman of sixty five years with a history of diabetes since 30 years, was admitted to the hospital with complains of chest pain. Several tests were conducted before confirming that she suffered from triple vessel disease (TVD).
The cardiologist, after consultation with a team of other doctors, recommended percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with stenting. Patient’s son was explained about risks and benefits, thereafter he consented for high-risk surgery.
Initial post-surgery period was uneventful, but matters took a serious turn in no time. The patient developed septicaemia and she died after a fortnight.
Her son somehow thought that cardiologist was negligent. He sued the doctor and levelled several allegations. His main grouse, however, was that the cardiologist inserted five stents despite knowing patient’s diabetic history.
The Commission, observing that patient son was a doctor himself, dismissed the complaint. The reasons are stated hereunder in the words of Commission:
“From the course of treatment it appears that patient was admitted on 5th May, stent was inserted on 8th May and after a long fighting she succumbed on 22nd May, i.e. after a lapse of a fortnight. From the materials on record, it appears to us that the patient was not subjected to negligence at any point of time rather her treatment was given under active participation of different doctors of different fields and other reputed physicians who were also invited for consultation in giving proper treatment so that the patient could survive ultimately”.
“The fact remains, the patient had a long history of diabetes and cardio vascular disease developed as a result of such long term diabetes for which PTCA was unsuccessful. Other cardiologists treating the patient advised for PTCA and such a procedure of treatment is well accepted in treating such type of patient, as it is our case in hand. Her son has simply generalized the allegation of medical negligence without giving any particular complaint against the cardiologist”.
The cardiologist was not held negligent and case against him was dismissed.
Source:Order pronounced by West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 21st December, 2021.