SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
Shyam Sunder Dash and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Tata Memorial Hospital and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.53 of 2010 and First Appeal No.115 of 2010
Decided on 8.1.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Tata Memorial Hospital:Mr. Sandeep Narain, Advocate
For the Shri Shyam Sunder Dash:Mr. Shibashish Misra, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Negligence in treatment of Osteosarcoma, ruled out, since treatment plan was correct as per standard of practice.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 19 and 2(1)(g) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Sections 41 and 2(11)—Medical Negligence—Osteosarcoma—Delay in performing operation leading to death—Daughter of complainant diagnosed for Osteosarcoma (bone cancer)—Patient was admitted to TMH in February, 1999 but the surgery was conducted after 6 months delay in September, 1999—Complainant neither led any expert evidence—nor produced any medical literature to prove medical negligence—As per expert opinions nothing is established about any lapses or failure of duty of care at TMH and does not corroborate the allegations of negligence raised by the complainant no. 2—Thus the State Commission rightly held that there was no medical negligence from opposite parties—Doctors at TMH have made correct diagnosis of Osteosarcoma—No deviation from the duty of care as operating surgeon to decide the time of operation after appropriate chemo therapy cycles and use of proper implant during surgery—Treatment plea found correct as per standard of practice—Patient died after eight months of the surgery and it was not due to any infection or any deficiency in duty of care of the treating doctor—Patient died due to metastasis in the lungs—Negligence on treating doctors at TMH ruled out. (Paras 14 to 26)

Result: Order Accordingly.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member.—Both the Appeals have been filed against the Final Judgement / Order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 57 of 2001 wherein the State Commission did not hold the Opposite Parties liable for medical negligence and dismissed the complaint. However it held the Tata Memorial Hospital for functional irregularities and ordered the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 to compensate the Complainant No. 2 by making a payment of Rs. 1 lakh plus Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

2. For the convenience, the facts are drawn from First Appeal No. 53 of 2010. The Appellants were complainants and the Respondents were the Opposite Parties in the complaint and they are accordingly referred in this Order.

3. Brief facts:

The Complainant No. 1 is voluntary Consumer Association and the Complainant No. 2 (Shyam Sundar Dash) is the employee of IMFA Ltd. at Therubali (Odisha). His daughter Shrutilekha Dash, about 16 years of age, (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as the “patient”) was taken to IMFA Hopsital, Therubali in the month of December 1998 for pain in left leg / knee. She was further referred to the Orthopedic Surgeon, Dr. Rama Chandra Rao at District Hospital, Raigad, wherein Biopsy of left knee joint was performed and it was diagnosed as Osteosarcoma of left knee. Thereafter, the IMFA Hospital referred the patient to Tata Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “TMH”) at Mumbai. On 26.02.1999, the Complainant No. 2 admitted his daughter to TMH. On 29.06.1999, Dr. Rajesh Badhwar (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite party No. 3”) Surgeon, Bone & Soft Tissue Service at TMH examined her and confirmed the diagnosis of Osteosarcoma. She was advised for few cycles of Chemotherapy followed by knee replacement with artificial limb at a later stage. The patient underwent Chemotherapy for more than five weeks and on 29.04.1999 was advised by the attending surgeon for Total Knee Replacement (TKR) with KOTZ Modular Implant. A total estimate of Rs. 3 lakh was intimated to the Complainant. It was alleged that the order for prosthesis (implant) from M/s Howmedica - the Opposite Party No. 4 was delayed because of the faulty internal administration of TMH. The supplier did not supply the required Prosthesis within the stipulated time because TMH did not clear previous dues of the supplier. The prosthesis having different measurement was requisitioned. Though the Prosthesis was available at discounted price with the help of Cancer Patient Aid, but TMH refused to accept it. It was further alleged that the patient was admitted in February, 1999 but the surgery was delayed to 15.09.1999, which caused additional expenditure due to increased higher price for prosthesis and the patient had undergone one more dose of Chemotherapy which was harmful for the patient. The Complainant further alleged that both the operative teams i.e. Cancer Surgeon and Plastic Surgeon were not present during the surgery which has a norm in such surgical process. The Plastic Surgeon too came to the Operation Theatre after two hours of the knee replacement surgery only on getting an emergency call. He expressed his dissatisfaction for such delay and told that it may cause infection to the operative wound. The plastic surgeon also expressed displeasure that there was no water available in the Operation Theatre for hand scrubbing; therefore he had to go to another Operation Theatre. It was further alleged that the Prosthesis was not implanted properly which caused damage to the blood vessels and profuse bleeding. It was the carelessness and deficiency in service of treating doctors due to which the patient developed infection at operated site. Thereafter, the doctors at TMH again advised to replace the Prosthesis with free fibula grafting with additional dose of Chemotherapy. It was alleged tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top