Some Important Judgements in Cardiology

Some Important Judgements in Cardiology
Dr KK Aggarwal • “In view of the fact that entire basis of complaint was that only two stents have been implanted instead of three stents, as claimed by EHIRC, and since it was been established on record from the opinion given by AIIMS after reviewing the CD that three stents were implanted, ... this petition is to be allowed...” (Dr. T. S. Kler vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. on 23 February, 2011, High Court of Delhi, W.P. (Crl.) 725 of 2007 with Crl. M.A. 6199 of 2007 % 23.02.2011) • “It has come on the record that the complainant was having blockage of multiple vessels due to diffuse atherosclerotic disease and dyslipidemia…It has also come on the record that the complainant had been taking treatment from different doctors and hospitals. Thus, the opposite parties cannot be blamed for any kind of medical negligence and deficiency in service. No case for interference in the impugned order in dismissing the complaint is made out.” (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; R.R. Sharma Son of Late Sh. Bal vs Metro Heart Institute And Metro on 13 August, 2012) • “… a person with heart problem should have not been allowed to go in a private car and ambulance with all life saving equipments should have been provided by the doctor,…, just to show the bonafide and concern that the serious patient reaches the tertiary hospital, where his ailment could be managed.” (Sher Singh vs Grewal Hospital on 19 December, 2012: 2nd Bench: State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab; First Appeal No.541 of 2012). In similar conditions in "Smt. Indrani Bhattacharjee Vs Chief Medical Officer, Farakka Super Thermal Power Project & Ors.", 2007(2) CPC-370(NC), the commission had held the doctor liable. • “… The respondent has been paid at the admissible rate in AIIMS but claims the difference between what is paid and what is admissible rate at Escort. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this Case we hold that the respondent in SLP (C) No. 11968/97 is entitled to be paid the difference amount of what is paid and what is the rate admissible in Escorts then. The same should be paid within one month from today. We make it clear reimbursement to the respondents as approved by us be not treated as precedent but has been given on the facts and circumstances of these cases.” (Supreme Court of India; State of Punjab & Ors vs Ram Lubhaya Bagga Etc. on 26 February, 1998) • “… it is evident that this was a case of real and acute emergency. The Railway Board circular also provides that during acute emergency the Railway employee or his family member could be treated in private hospitals and the bills will be reimbursed by the railway department. Therefore, the Dy. Chief Medical Officer (TA), HQ, Western Railway, Mumbai, in his subjective satisfaction cannot mention a part of the Discharge Card and omit the relevant part which shows that the applicant was admitted with serious cardiac problem and required treatment in ICCU.” (Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai, Shri Bipinchandra N. Mistry vs Union Of India Through Its on 23 August, 2012) • “The ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (supra), as pointed out in the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of M.G. Mahindru v. Union of India and Anr. (supra) and J. C. Sindhwani v. Union of India and Anr. (supra), is not against full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in a private hospital approved by the Government.” (Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi: Shri Prakash Chand vs Union Of India (UOI) And Anr. on 23 January, 2007; Equivalent citations: 2007 (3) SLJ 312 CAT) • “When the patient is not aware of the disease or the symptoms of the same that would affect him, or the doctors are not aware of the symptoms of the disease and the insurance company does not do any medical check up before revising the policy, it cannot be said that there was suppression of material facts by the respondent.” (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Smt. Mili Dutta, Wife Of Shri Niharendu Dutta on 8 July, 2013) • “…the applicant having suffered heart attack was immediately rushed to the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and was subjected to bypass heart surgery within two days of his... Merely because the applicant was not the member of the CGHS cannot deprive him of his entitlement for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. We therefore have no hesitation in concluding that the claim of the medical reimbursement of expenses incurred by the applicant is denied on untenable grounds and therefore, the O.A. deserves to be allowed and the respondents are required to be directed to entertain the claim of reimbursement of medical treatment expenses of the applicant and reimburse the same.”(Central Administrative Tribunal - Gwalior; Laxmi Chand vs Comptroller And Auditor General on 4 November, 2004; Equivalent citations: 2005 (2) SLJ 145) • “Thus, O.P.1 alone can be held guilty for deficiency in service in accepting the patient when senior doctors who alone were competent to handle the complications arising during or after the operation, as they were out of town and by not providing appropriate care or continuing with the treatment and presumably wrong diagnosis inspite of deteriorating condition. In our view, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2.5 Lacs including cost of litigation will meet the ends of justice. Complaint is disposed of.” (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moorti Sharma vs Indraprastha Medical on 8 January, 2007, C-372/1997, Delhi) • “… the Honble Supreme Court in its recent decision in Martin F.D. Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfak reported in 2009 Indian Law SC 174 once again made clear that in proof of the allegation of medical negligence it has to be supported by expert evidence, else, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.” (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kodali Venkateswara Rao vs Saumya Medicare International ... on 19 January, 2010: AP state).