The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Commission has upheld a compensation order against Mumbai-based Asian Heart Institute and Research Centre for medical negligence, after a 77-year-old heart surgery patient had to be rushed back to the intensive care unit within 12 hours of his discharge.
A bench consisting of President Justice (retired) Sunita Yadav and Member Dr. Monika Malik dismissed appeals from both the hospital and the patient, Dr. Vinay Singh Yadav. The ruling affirmed a July 24, 2023, decision by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Damoh, which had ordered the hospital to pay Rs 3.10 lakh in compensation and costs for deficiency in service.
Discharge And Emergency Readmission
Dr. Yadav, a resident of Damoh, underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery at the Mumbai facility on July 27, 2019, after an angiography in Jabalpur revealed blockages in all three of his coronary arteries. Following a two-week hospital stay, he was discharged on August 7, 2019.
However, within 12 hours of leaving the hospital, Dr. Yadav experienced severe breathing difficulties, and his oxygen saturation levels dropped below 50 percent. He was rushed back to the hospital’s intensive care unit on August 8, 2019.
The patient subsequently filed a complaint with the district consumer commission, alleging that he was discharged prematurely despite his fragile health, subjected to negligent treatment, and overcharged. Dr. Yadav stated that although he was initially quoted a package of approximately Rs 9 lakh, the hospital billed him Rs 14.85 lakh for his first admission and an additional Rs 1.46 lakh for the second emergency admission. He also alleged that the surgeon ignored his complaints of severe pain and swelling in his right hand, which a later venous Doppler examination revealed was caused by blood vessel damage.
Hospital Cites High-Risk Factors
The Asian Heart Institute contested the allegations, arguing that Dr. Yadav was a high-risk patient due to pre-existing conditions, including diabetes, hypertension, weak kidneys, and a history of smoking.
According to the hospital, these complications extended his initial stay from the packaged seven days to 14 days, which explained the higher bill. The hospital further contended that the patient’s sudden readmission was caused by bronchospasm and a respiratory infection linked to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, asserting that all treatments adhered to standard medical protocols.
Commission Finds Contradictory Medical Records
In its July 17 ruling, the state commission determined that the hospital’s own medical records contradicted its defense.
Upon reviewing the first discharge summary, the commission noted that while the patient’s cardiovascular conditions were recorded, his respiratory system was consistently marked as normal, with no mention of any active lung infection. Additionally, none of the 21 medications prescribed to him upon discharge included antibiotics.
Similarly, the second discharge summary did not document any history of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Clinical examinations during the second admission also indicated no abnormalities in the respiratory system, while an HRCT chest scan suggested pulmonary interstitial oedema rather than the infection claimed by the hospital.
Concluding that the hospital lacked medical evidence to support its claims of a post-discharge respiratory infection, the commission ruled that the district body did not err in finding a deficiency in service. While the state commission agreed that the patient should have been kept under longer observation, it declined Dr. Yadav’s request to increase the compensation, declaring the existing award sufficient.
