NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. MALIK, S.M. KANTIKAR, JJ.
Dr. Mehta Urology and Surgical Centre – Petitioner
Versus
Vimla Devi and Others – Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3077 of 2011, First Appeal No. A/953 of 2006
Decided On : 17-12-2013
Medical Negligence - Cholecystectomy - 15-20 minutes power failure during operation - Faecal fistula developed post-operatively - Multiple surgeries and complications - Ethical and legal duty of doctors - Deficiency in service
Fact of the Case:
The patient underwent Cholecystectomy at a hospital, during which there was a power failure. Post-operatively, she developed complications leading to multiple surgeries and incurring significant expenses. The court found the hospital guilty of medical negligence and directed them to pay compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the hospital guilty of medical negligence due to the development of complications post-operatively and the lack of appropriate surgical expertise. It emphasized the ethical and legal duty of doctors to comply with regulations and exercise reasonable competence.
Issues: Medical negligence, ethical and legal duty of doctors, deficiency in service
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the hospital's actions amounted to medical negligence, emphasizing the importance of possessing requisite skill and exercising reasonable competence. It also highlighted the ethical duty of doctors to comply with regulations and act in the best interest of the patient.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and directed the hospital to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 2.25 lakh, with interest, for the deficiency in service.
ORDER :
1. Facts of the case are:
The Complainant, Smt. Vimla Devi (patient) underwent operation of Cholecystectomy on 8.10.2004 at Dr. Mehta Urology & Surgical Centre, (OP-2). It was performed by Dr. (Col.) V.K. Mehta i.e. OP-1. The Complainant was assured of not likely any post-operative complications. During the operation, there was an electric failure which took 15-20 minutes, for restoration during which, the Complainant was lying in the Operation Theatre (OT), with incision of surgery. It was also alleged that the Complainant would have lost her life if the electricity would have not been restored. The Complainant’s allegation was that no basic facilities, like electricity back up in OP-2 hospital were provided. After the operation, she suffered severe pain in stomach for which, the OP-1 assured that it was only due to gas Her condition further deteriorated and she developed high grade fever, for which the OP-1 did not attend but discharged her, on 11.10.2004. However, the complainant (patient) again approached the OP-1, on 13.112004, and she was kept under observation for 4 days. It was noticed that her condition worsened and pus started coming out of operated site. Therefore, on 17.10.2004, OP-1 again operated upon her, but the pus and faecal material started pouring out from the incision site. To stop the discharge, the OP-1, again operated on 19.10.2004, but the condition of patient worsened further. It was the allegation that OP continued misleading the patient and her relatives about her condition; therefore, to save her life, she was shifted to Batra Hospital on 21.10.2004, and again operated on 22.10.2004, and discharged on 6.11.2004. Subsequently, she was kept in Ashoka-Hospital for a day and then for post-operative care, she was kept in Safdarjung Hospital from 7.11.2004 to 20.11.2004. The complainant’s allegation is that her sufferings are due to negligence of OP-1, during three operations conducted on her, on 8th, 17th and 19th October, 2004, and incurred huge expenses for treatment at Batra Hospital, Ashoka Hospital. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter, District Forum.) and claimed the expenses in the sum of Rs. 3.1 lakh and Rs. 2 lakh for mental agony. The OPs denied the allegations of any negligence occurred during treatment of the Complainant.
2. On the basis of medical records and the evidence of both the parties, the District Consumer Forum held the OP guilty of medical negligence, and directed them to pay the compensation, jointly and severally, in the sum of Rs. 3 lacs, plus costs of Rs. 5,000.
3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum the OP preferred an appeal FA 593/2006 before the State Commission.
4. The State Commission dismissed the appeal, with costs of Rs. 20,000.
5. Hence, against the order of State Commission, the Petitioner/OP filed this Revision Petition.
6. We have heard Counsel for the both parties and perused the evidence on record, the medical record like progress sheets, the discharge summary of Batra Hospital and the Medical Board’s opinion.
7. We have noticed that the Complainant underwent operation of Cholecystectomy by OP-1 and the post-operative period was uneventful, thereafter, she developed faecal fistula. The OP-1 tried to correct those complications but subsequently she was shifted to Batra Hospital for further surgical management, thereafter stayed at other hospitals for post-operative care. The total period of treatment was from 8 10.2004 to 20.11.2004.
8. In this instant case, we need to examine whether OP was negligent in performing the operation and also, thereafter, whether, he failed to perform his duty during post-operative period to treat the patient. The OP hospital is a Government approved centre, with well-equipped operation theatre and adopted latest techniques and appointed qualified doctor
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.