PANJIM: Amit Prasad a 27-year-old banker got his appendix removed in his home town Jamshedpur in January 2020, after his appendix was supposedly removed by Manipal Hospital in May 2019, for which he was charged close to Rs 85,000 for the duration of his hospital stay.
An order has been given in his favour by the Consumer Redressal Commission in Goa, even as Manipal Hospital has termed the charges against them “concocted and frivolous”.
The Redressal Commission thought otherwise and has given credence to the patient's version of events which are being reproduced here based on the case details in the order.
In September 2019, he had acute abdominal pain and tests showed that the pain was from his appendix which was purportedly removed by the doctors at Manipal Hospital Goa.
He actually went back, panic-stricken to Manipal. The hospital kept him for observations and tests and advised one more surgery. The bill for only the “observation” came to close to Rs 42,000. The banker couldn’t take bank on Manipal Hospital anymore and went back to his hometown Jamshedpur where the Kantilal Gandhi Memorial Hospital removed his appendicitis
After a long ordeal, Amit Prasad has won a small victory. Manipal Health Enterprises directed to pay Rs 10 lakh for medical negligence in performing appendicitis surgery by the Consumer Redressal Commission based on his complaint
Here is his full story, based on legal documents. Amit Prasad, the 27-year-old banker, had to bear a double ordeal – physical and financial. While on one hand, the young professional from Jharkhand had to endure severe pain due to appendicitis, on the other hand, he had to pay a whopping Rs 1.76 lakh as the medical bill for an alleged botched up surgery for appendicitis by Manipal Hospital.
Of this Rs 1.76 lakh, Prasad paid Rs 1.26 lakh to Manipal Hospital alone for getting treated in the hospital twice for the same ailment.
Dissatisfied with the treatment outcome and physical and mental agony caused, the banker sued Manipal Hospital at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which directed Manipal Health Enterprises Pvt Ltd to pay Rs 10 lakh to Prasad for not performing surgery on his appendicitis properly.
The Commission said if the amount was not paid after the appeal period, the same would carry an interest of 7 per cent per annum till the final payment.
In his complaint filed at the Commission, Prasad had stated that on account of unbearable pain, he visited Manipal Health Enterprises Pvt Limited on May 2, 2019, where he was diagnosed with acute appendicitis and advised immediate surgery.
Prasad was informed that it was a laparoscopic surgery and he was discharged after two days. The hospital raised a bill of Rs 84,797. But Prasad suddenly developed severe abdominal pain again on November 25, 2019.
Since the pain was unbearable, he visited “Chodankar’s Hospital” at Porvorim. He was examined and advised for sonography. The sonography was conducted and he was informed that the abdominal pain could be on account of Appendicitis. Dr Gaurav Sardessai, who conducted the ultra-sonography, doubted Prasad’s claim that his appendix was removed.
Soon thereafter, Prasad went Manipal Hospital armed with reports of tests done at Dr Sardesai’s Ultra sound clinic Porvorim as well as in GMC on the same day November 25, 2019). At Manipal, his report showed the symptoms of Appendicitis”
The opinion given by a doctor at Manipal Hospital along with the ultrasonography reports obtained at Dr Sardesai Clinic and Goa Medical College alarmed the complainant.
On the advice given by the said doctor at Manipal Hospital, Prasad met Dr Jagannath Kulkarni, who had performed the surgery earlier. Dr Kulkarni advised him to get
admitted and be kept under observation for two to three days. Amit stayed in the hospital from November 26 to 29, 2019. On November 29, Prasad was in for a shock as he was indicated that after a gap of four weeks, he would have to undergo one more surgery for the completion of Appendectomy.
The hospital raised a bill of Rs 41,277 this time. During his stay, he was not informed that he had to undergo an additional stump appendectomy which fact was informed to him only at the time of discharge from the said hospital.
Having lost faith, Prasad left for his native place at Jamshedpur where he visited a local hospital for consultation.
The doctor, after going through his case papers, opined that he would have to undergo a stump appendectomy. The Appendix was removed on January 24, 2020. There he had to pay Rs 50,903.94.
Prasad then approached the Commission stating that the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Manipal Hospital and the doctor had devastating effects his career and prospects and he had to incur financial loss.
The Commission observed that the present case was a clear case of culpable and gross negligence.
Dr Kulkarni and the other doctors in the hospital were negligent in performing their duties towards the complainant as a patient. They failed to use reasonable skills and their knowledge in performing a small surgery.
It is a case of deficiency in service as defined under Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the two-member Commission observed.
Charges are ‘frivolous and concocted’: Manipal Health Enterprises Pvt Ltd
PANJIM: Manipal Health Enterprises Pvt Ltd in its reply to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission denied the charges, made by Prasad saying they were frivolous and concocted.
The hospital contended that since there were severe inflammatory charges observed in the USG report by Goa Medical College and Dr Sardesai's ultrasound clinic as well as the CT scan done at Manipal Hospital, it suggested an appendicular stump which was retrocaecal.
It further submitted that in medical literature review, stump appendicitis results in more than 60 percent of patients following open surgery and 40 per cent in laparoscopic surgery.
“Anatomical factors such as retrocaecal appendix are considered to be challenging factors to accurately locate the true appendicular base, especially in the presence of severe local inflammation (Acute appendicitis),” the hospital submitted.
“The hospital submitted that the diagnosis of acute appendicitis based on history, clinical examination was and as the condition of the complainant was acute with pain not subsiding with the treatment he had taken he has advised surgery,” the hospital stated in its reply to the Commission.
Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed under general anaesthesia and with three holes and not four holes as mentioned by the complainant, the hospital submitted.
The hospital submitted that the complainant had to undergo surgery for his diagnosis of stump appendicitis, there is evidence literature and case studies of stump appendicitis following appendectomy.
‘’There has been no negligence in any area for complainant treatment at the hospital,” it was submitted.
However, when contacted the hospital expressed ignorance over the matter.