The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, recently ruled that Max Balaji Hospital and its physicians were not guilty of medical negligence in relation to how they handled a patient who was having frequent palpitations. In this case, which dates back to 2010, the patient had palpitations upon hospital admission and was subjected to continuous cardiac and medical monitoring.
The patient was assessed as soon as they were in, and an ECHO test was performed, which showed irregular ECGs and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35%. The patient was diagnosed with idiopathic ventricular tachycardia by the attending physician, the Head of the Electrophysiology and Arrhythmia Services. The patient’s ECHO readings improved on May 1, 2010, revealing early diastolic dysfunction and a 65% ejection fraction. Following a two-month period of stable condition and prescription medicine, the patient was subsequently released on May 3, 2010, with a recommendation for Holter monitoring.
The patient sought therapy from other doctors after being discharged due to persistent tachycardia, and ultimately received care at Medanta Hospital. The patient was fitted with an Automated Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (AICD) to treat palpitations following a tachycardia episode.
The patient alleged that the physicians at Max Balaji Hospital were unable to identify the root cause of the palpitations and initially disapproved of the implantation of an AICD. Citing carelessness in detecting diseases like sarcoidosis and tuberculosis, he sought Rs 18.50 Lac with 24% interest and an additional Rs 55,000 for legal costs.
The hospital and its physicians defended themselves by saying that the patient had gotten the recommended course of care and had been properly monitored by a group of cardiologists. After a battery of tests, including ECHO, ECGs, and other cardiac evaluations, idiopathic ventricular tachycardia was diagnosed. The patient disregarded follow-up instructions, according to the hospital, despite their recommendation for additional tests including CAG and EPS.
The patient’s lawsuit was first dismissed by the District Consumer Court, which noted that he had not supplied a medical opinion or hard proof to support his allegations of carelessness. Dissatisfied with this decision, the patient filed an appeal with the State Consumer Court, claiming that tuberculosis and sarcoidosis, which the hospital had not diagnosed, were the cause of his ventricular tachycardia.
After reviewing the claims, the State Commission determined if there was evidence of carelessness. The Commission listed the requirements for proving medical negligence, citing the ruling of the Apex Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Anr. These requirements include a duty of care owed to the patient, a breach of that duty by deviating from accepted standards, damages resulting from the breach, and a direct causal relationship between the breach and the damages sustained.
After conducting an examination, the State Commission determined that the physicians at Max Balaji Hospital had given proper medical treatment along with continuous cardiac monitoring. The patient’s clinical presentation and test results led to the diagnosis of idiopathic ventricular tachycardia. It was decided that the discharge and follow-up suggestions were sufficient. The court did not discover any proof of a duty breach or departure from accepted medical procedures.
The decision to absolve Max Balaji Hospital and its physicians of medical negligence charges was thus maintained by the State Consumer Court, underscoring the significance of satisfying certain legislative requirements in order to support allegations of medical misconduct.
SOURCE:
MEDICAL DIALOGUES
