Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member & Dinesh Singh, Member
Dr. Samir Rai & Anr. — Complainants
Versus
Medanta Hospital & Ors. —Opp.Parties
Consumer Case no. 173 of 2011
Decided on 11.8.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For Complainants :Dr. M.C. Gupta, Advocate
For Ops :Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Advocate with, Ms. Shyel Trehan, Advocate, Ms. Himanie Katoch, Advocate, Mr. Kanak Bose, Advocate, Mr. Rohan Poddar, Advocateand Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Simply proving the suffering of ailment by patient after surgery does not amount to medical negligence.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 51]—Medical services—Medical negligence—Death of patient after surgery—Complainants, being medical practitioners-super specialists themselves, are well aware of available treatment options and medical facilities—OP-1 Hospital knowing fully well that best possible treatment would be available and OP-1 Hospital was only centre in country which is a part of International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissections (IRAD) registry—At the time of admission, patient was obese, hypertensive with dysglycemia, peripheral vascular disease and presented with expanded Aneurysm of arch of Aorta—It was a proper treatment—A doctor or surgeon cannot assure that outcome of any surgery would be beneficial—Suffering of ailment by patient after surgery does not simply mean medical negligence—Doctor can be held for medical negligence only if suffering of any such ailment is because of improper performance of surgery and that too with degree of negligence on part of doctor—A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to extent of 100% for person operated on—Only assurance which such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is that he is possessed of requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practising and while undertaking performance of task entrusted to him he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence—Complainants, though being well qualified doctors, concealed that Complainant was addicted to drugs—At OP-1 Hospital, treating doctors investigated and treated patient as per standard medical practice—Deficiency / negligence cannot be conclusively established on treating doctors / hospital—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 10, 11,12, 18 to 22)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member —The complaint was filed by Dr. Samir Rai and his wife Dr. Arpita Rai for alleged medical negligence on the part of the OPs. Dr. Samir Rai expired during the pendency of the complaint, it is being further pursued by the surviving complainant.
2. The first complainant Dr. Sameer Rai a renowned Urologist from Amritsar (since deceased herein after referred to as “the patient”) was diagnosed to have Aneurysm of the arch of Aorta and on 11.07.2010 referred to New Delhi. On 12.07.2010 he got admitted in Medanta Hospital at Gurgaon (the OP-1) for replacement of Aortic arch. The CT scan and other investigations were performed on 16.07.2010. It was alleged that the CT contrast material caused severe allegoric reaction and resulted into hoarseness of voice and bout of blood came from throat. The doctors contended that it was due to rupture of Aneurysm. The Complainant alleged that the diagnosis of rupture of the Aneurysm was totally wrong, and the OPs-2 & 3 have decided to perform urgent surgery on the next day. The doctors did not provide proper information about the nature of disease and choice of surgery to be performed. The consent was not an informed consent, as both the Complainants were surgeons and would have preferred the endoscopic (closed) method of surgery as it was suggested by one Cardiac surgeon Dr. Rakesh Sudan, but the doctors OPs-2 & 3 performed open surgery. It was alleged that due to unhygienic conditions in the operation theatre the two surgical wounds (one in the groin and one on the chest) became infected and started oozing pus. For its treatment the doctors advised further operations on both the sites, but the patient did not agree and he protested that it was against the established surgical principles.
3. For the infected surgical wound in the right groin, OP-3 planned the debridement and secondary suturing on 5.8.2010. At 11-30 a.m., the patient was seen by Dr. Shivani, respiratory specialist and advised if possible General Anaesthesia (GA) should be avoided, as the patient was at high risk. The advice was ignored by the treating doctors and asked the patient to sign Consent form for surgery but the patient refused to sign the Consent form. However, the surgery was forcibly done under GA. The patient came out of anaesthesia and he had severe pain in his right thigh and his whole right arm became numb (paralysed).
4. It was further alleged that after four days, OP-3 performed another operation for the wound on chest at the lower end of sternum. It was done under intravenous sedation and not under GA. The Consent form for the said surgery does not bear the signature of the patient but it merely carries patient’s thumb impression. The thumb impression was attested by Dr. Saxena on behalf of the OPs. At the first time Dr. Sumit Singh noted the paralysis of patient’s right hand on 10.8.2010 and advised for physiotherapy & re-evaluation; but nothing was done. The patient was discharged from OP-1 hospital on 16.08.2010; the discharge summary was surprisingly silent about the paralysis of right hand, the patient suffered during treatment. Again on 19.08.2010 the patient was readmitted to OP-1 hospital. Again, the admission record and the clinical findings were silent about the paralysis and it was recorded as ‘NONE’ for the neurological and musculo-skeletal system. The patient was discharged from OP hospital on 25.08.2010. Thereafter, during next 3½ years the patient underwent 19 surgeries at Amritsar by the surgeon Dr. Jasdeep Singh for healing of both the wounds [Incision and drainage (I & D)]. The groin wound eventually healed in mid-November, 2010, but the chest wound remained un-healed till the death of the patient. It was alleged that the patient died due to the complications of non-healing chest wound which was caused due to the negligence during surgery. Being aggrieved by the negligent acts of the hospital (OP-1) and the treating doctors (OPs- 2, 3 & 4) the complainants f
