Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President and Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member
DR. MADHU GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
MEDANTA - Respondent
Complaint No. 74 of 2014
Decided on : 27-01-2017
Mrs. Madhu Gupta along with Mr. Umesh Gupta - husband of complainant, Advocates, for the complainant; Mr. Madhukar Pandey, Advocate, for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 5; None, for the Opposite Party No. 6; Mrs. Veena Bhutani, Advocate, for the Opposite Party No. 7
The main legal point established in the judgment is the onus of proving medical negligence lies on the complainant, and expert opinion is essential to support the claim of negligence.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Knee Replacement Surgery - [Indian Contract Act, 1872, Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - The court discussed the medical negligence in knee replacement surgery and the legal principles under the Indian Contract Act and Consumer Protection Act. The court emphasized the onus of proving medical negligence lies on the complainant and the need for expert opinion to establish the case of negligence. The court also highlighted the principle of medical negligence as laid down in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee and the standards of skills/knowledge expected of the doctor.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a doctor, underwent knee replacement surgery at a hospital and subsequently experienced complications, leading to multiple surgeries and treatments at different hospitals. She alleged medical negligence and sought compensation for expenses, damages, and mental agony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to prove medical negligence on the part of the hospitals and doctors. It emphasized the need for expert opinion to support the claim of negligence and noted that the treating doctors followed the expected course of treatment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the hospitals and doctors were negligent in the treatment of the complainant, leading to her complications and additional expenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the onus of proving medical negligence lies on the complainant and emphasized the need for expert opinion to establish the case of negligence. It also highlighted the principle of medical negligence as laid down in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee and the standards of skills/knowledge expected of the doctor.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, as the court did not find any case of negligence made out by the complainant. It concluded that the opposite parties followed the most desirable and expected course of treatment and cannot be held liable merely on the allegation of the complainant.
ORDER
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member—Dr. Madhu Gupta-complainant filed the present complaint averring as under:-
2. The complainant is a doctor (Gynaecologist) and was practicing in her hospital namely "Naggal Chaudhary Hospital". She was suffering from Arthritis since long. In the year 2010, she suffered from knee problem, so she visited Medanta, the Medicity, Global Health Private Limited-Opposite Party No.1 where Dr. Ashok Rajgopal-Opposite Party No.2 advised the complainant to get her knee replaced. She was admitted in the hospital on 07.02.2010; her knee replacement was done. According to the complainant, she incurred Rs.4.00 lacs on her treatment which included medicines, transportation, special diet etc. (Bill Exhibit C-1).
3. It was alleged that after implantation there was continuous discharge of some fluid (liquor substance) from her knee. She was again admitted in the above said hospital (opposite party No.1) on 05.05.2010 where she was operated upon and was discharged on 07.05.2010. She incurred Rs.70,000/- for her surgery and other expenses. (Bill Exhibit C-2). It was stated on both the occasions, though the treatment was not given by Dr. Ashok Rajgopal but his name was mentioned in the medical record/Discharge Summary.
4. Despite the second surgery, the same problem developed again and there was a continuous discharge from the knees. There was a acute pain and instability in the left knee joint. She visited Opposite Party No.1 and the doctors started giving treatment for tuberculosis. The complainant visited Apollo Hospital-Opposite Party No.6 on 14.06.2010 where the doctors told that the complainant was not suffering from tuberculosis and also advised to get the implantation removed because the same was creating problem due to the negligent treatment at Medanta Hospital. It was also told that there was acute infection in the implant due to the carelessness of the treating doctors. In Apollo Hospital, the complainant spent Rs.10,000/-. (Bill Exhibit C-3).
5. After getting discharge from Apollo Hospital, she was again admitted in Medanta on 26.09.2011 for the removal of infectious implant and again surgery was done and implant was removed. The complainant spent more than Rs.1.00 lac in revision surgery of left knee. Discharge Summary is Exhibit C-4.
6. As per the advice of doctors, she was again got admitted at Medanta Hospital for revision of removed implantation. She was sent for biopsy and after biopsy her wound started bleeding. She was discharged with advice to visit after one month. She submitted to have spent Rs.50,000/- vide bills Exhibit C-5.
7. Since the disease suffered by the complainant became more serious, she visited All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi in January, 2012 where the doctors did grafting on the knee but still the discharge of blood and fluid was not stopped. She was advised to get VAC dressing for which she spent about rupees one lac vide bills Exhibit C-6.
8. After VAC dressing, though her discharge of fluid and bleeding stopped, but still she is unable to walk of her own. She further spent more than rupees one lac on the follow up treatment. (Bills Exhibit C-7). Thus, alleging it a case of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Medanta Hospital-Opposite Parties No.1 to 5, the complainant sought compensation of Rs.10.00 lacs along with interest @ 18% per annum on account of the expenses incurred by her; Rs.10.00 lacs for damages, physical harassment etc; Rs.5.00 lacs for mental agony; Rs.20.00 lacs for loss of income and Rs.2.00 lacs as litigation expenses.
9. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 in their joint written version while denying the allegations of the complainant stated that the treatment given to the complainant at Medanta Hospital was as per the standard and prevailing medical practices. Due care, caution and diligence was exercised by the opposite parties in choosing the course of treatment. The complainant had visited the opposite party No.1
