Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Hindu
The Hindu

Consumer Commission finds Apollo guilty of negligence

The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd and three of its doctors at Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills to pay ₹ 5 lakh to a patient after he developed health complications after surgery. The Commission found evidence of negligence and deficiency against them.

In a recent order, the Commission comprising president M S K Jaiswal, and member Meena Ramanathan were dealing with a complaint by Y S Prasad who stated he was diagnosed with bowel loop with peristalsis in right inguinal region. He was admitted in the hospital on January 12, 2015 and underwent surgery. A day later he began suffering from distension and severe bloating. On January 17, his creatinine levels rose to 4.6. On the insistence of his doctor friend he was moved to advanced critical care unit and underwent a CT scan. During this time his condition became worse.

For their part, the opposite parties stated that the complaint was not maintainable as Mr Prasad was treated free of cost. They recounted how treatment was done and that his condition was meticulously monitored. They also stated that an outside surgeon who performed a surgery later was entertained only for the satisfaction of the complainant and his family and there has been no negligence and deficiency of service on by the opposite parties.

Based on the evidence, the Commission observed that question of why the complication occurred and was not treated immediately was unanswered. “The patient was not comfortable from the second post-operative day, yet the opposite parties failed to correct the bowel entrapment hernia. The opposite parties failed to make the diagnosis and hasten the treatment in the instant case. The opposite parties failed to recognise the heightened index for this complication and the complainant developed severe complication for the delayed attention,” the Commission noted.

If the patient was meticulously monitored, the rapid deterioration could have been avoided and his stay in the hospital was abnormally long he developed sepsis, the Commission noted. “The opposite parties failed to provide reasoning for the complainant to have developed these severe complications, nor have they provided any medical literature to explain the development of the situation,” the commission stated.

Stating the complainant did not submit bills, paid only for the first surgery, and had pointed out that the hospital had not charged him for prolonged treatment, the Commission directed the opposite parties to pay ₹ 5 lakh and costs of ₹ 10,000.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.