New Delhi : The Supreme Court bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Justice Prashant KumarMishraset aside the observations made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against top cardiologist and Padma Shri Awardee Dr Upendra Kaul for allegedly being negligent while performing angioplasty procedure followed by the cardiac arrest of the patient leading to his death at AIIMS. In the said matter the division bench was hearing an appeal challenging NCDRC decision which upheld the state commission’s finding that while the appellant doctor could not be held guilty, the hospital was culpable of administrative negligence since the bypass machine was not available readily.
The complaint revolved around an angiography procedure performed bydefendant physician Dr. Kaul, which the patient alleged lacked appropriate medical attention, resulting in a fatality. Following a comprehensive evaluation, the state commission determined that although the defendant physician couldn’t be found responsible, the hospital was at fault for administrative negligence due to the unavailability of the PCPS machine when needed. On appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) affirmed the state commission’s decision.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Dr.Kaul submitted that there was a mishap and the patient died which happens in 1-2% of cases. He submitted that in the present case, the National and District forum had held the doctor negligent. On the Contrary, Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the exceptional contributions of the distinguished cardiologist, who has conducted over 11,000 successful angioplasties. He emphasized that NCDRC confused the bypass machine with the ventilator. In this specific case, a ventilator had been promptly deployed and the pacemaker was swiftly installed in accordance with the established Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for cardiac arrest.
The heart of the matter hinged on the claim that the bypass machine was not deployed within a 4-minute window, which formed the basis for the NCDRC’s negligence finding. Nonetheless, Adv. Bhushan contended that deploying the machine within the stipulated time frame was unrealistic and ran counter to established medical protocols.
