NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Binoy Kumar, Member
Smt. Manjulata Garg —Complainant
versus
Dr. R.C. Mishra and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.87 of 2013
Decided on 21.6.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 –S.12(1)(a)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.35(1)(a)] – Services – Medical Negligence – Neurosurgery – Whether the treatment adopted by OP-1 has deficiency and was it contrary to the reasonable practice in Neurosurgery – From the medical literature DEXA scan is not mandatory in each case. Pedicle screw loosening is a common complication after spine surgeries. Traditionally, it was assessed by radiological approaches, both X-ray and CT scan, while reports using mechanical method to study screw loosening after spine surgery are rare – The OP-1 for reinforcing the stabilization and healing used locally available bone-graft at the aforesaid screw-site. It was an age-old procedure of bone-strengthening better than use of bone cement. The old method was still in use and there is nothing on record to prove such method was legally abandoned/ stopped. Therefore, in the view of the Commission, the OP-1 used the accepted method of treatment and thus it was a reasonable standard of practice, no a deviation of practice “ In the instant case, four screws were used as two in D-10 & two in D-12. One screw-problem may be classified as ‘mal-positioned’ due to obesity and excessive fat, which led to inadequate x-ray evaluation. It is pertinent to note that three screws were retained during 2nd surgery at ISIC, thus meaning thereby Osteoporosis effect was not for the three screws – The patient thereafter had developed hospital acquired respiratory infection with pleural effusion which has turned out to be TB at ISIC which cannot be attributed to the treatment given by Ops – Thus it is not feasible to conclusively attribute non-adherence to duty of care and standard of practice, it is difficult to conclusively establish medical negligence/deficiency on the treating doctor and the hospital – Complaint dismissed. [Paras 21 to 29].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The Underlying Facts As Alleged By the Complainant:—
On 11.05.2011, Smt Manjulata Garg (since deceased herein referred to as “ Patient”) was taken to OP-1 i.e. Dr. R.C. Mishra for complaints of severe backache. Her husband informed the OP-1 about the Osteoporesis of the patient. After examination, the OP-1 advised to admit her immediately to the Kamayani Hospital (OP-3 - Hospital). It was alleged that the physician’s opinion and neurological evaluation was not done and no proper pre-anaesthetic check-up was done by the Anaesthetist. The MRI dated 11.05.2011, done at Eisha Diagnostic showed collapse of D-10 vertebra and the X-Ray showed traumatic compression of D-11 vertebra and severe Osteoporosis. However, the OP-1 did not bother to recheck/confirm the report by repeat X-ray or MRI. The patient was operated on 12.05.2011 at 5 PM. The operation took 3 ½ hours to complete. The OP-1 after operation informed the patient’s husband that due to very weak/fragile bones, he did not fasten the screws to its full extent. Thereafter, patient’s condition deteriorated and she remained at the hospital till 21.05.2011. It was alleged that during the said period about Rs.5,00,000/- was spent on treatment. The Patient further alleged that on 21.05.2011, the Opposite Parties forcefully discharged the patient, though her condition was critical and serious. Due to such abrupt act of the Opposite Parties, on the same day, the patient was taken to Rashmi Medicare Centre in Agra. She was admitted in ICU under care of Dr. Tarun Singhal. On the next day, it was informed that the patient was febrile and had respiratory distress. She developed hospital acquired respiratory infections with pleural effusion. The patient remained under treatment in Rashmi Medicare Centre till 04.06.2011. The patient was later on diagnosed as tubercular infection (TB) at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre (ISIC) in New Delhi.
2. There was no cure from the backache; it remained persistent at the site of surgery. Therefore, on 04.06.2011, she was admitted to ISIC, where Dr. Deepak Raina examined the patient and told that a wrong surgery has been performed at Agra and since the patient was suffering from Osteoporosis, such kind of surgery was not recommended. He further informed that 8 screws were necessary for fastening, but the OPs-1 & 2 fastened just 4 screws. It was with the intention to gain more money. At ISIC, X-Ray and CT Scan report revealed Osteoporosis and bilateral pleural collections, which was suggestive of consolidation/collapse of the lungs. It was alleged that on 21.05.2011 the patient was thrown out of the hospital in a critical condition and only the discharge summary was handed to the patient’s relative. The Bad Head Ticket (BHT) and detailed bills were issued only after legal notice.
3. At ISIC on 21.07.2011, the patient was re-operated on the same vertebra with bone cement augmentation under the supervision of Dr. Deepak Raina and Dr. K. Das. On 31.10.2011, post-operative check X-Rays and CT scan confirmed successful operation with intact screws.
4. Thus, it was not a reasonable degree of care/skill, but it was negligence of the Opposite Parties, who have ignored Osteoporosis and performed the operation unscientifically, which led to permanent disability of the patient. Being aggrieved, the patient filed a complaint before this Commission and prayed for Rs. 1,02,01,000/- from the Opposite Parties under different heads.
Defense:
5. The Opposite Parties filed their respective written versions. The preliminary objection that for want of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, the complaint has been filed based completely on illusionary highly inflated figures just to extract money illegally from the opposite parties. The OPs denied the allegations of negligence during treatment of the patient. It was also denied the forceful discharge of the patient from the Kamayani Hospital in critical condition. It was also
Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(1) DEXA scan — From the medical literature DEXA scan is not mandatory in each case.(2) Accepted method —OP-1 used the accepted method of treatment and thus it was a reasonable standard of practice, ....
Medical negligence ruled out where in a case established treatment protocol followed with reasonable duty of care.
Medical negligence not established as the surgical procedures adhered to accepted standards of care and informed consent was secured.
(1) Death of patient - The death of patient was not due to oesophageal perforation and no way related to the surgery also. Patient died due to sudden unexpected and unrelated hematemesis.(2) Treating....
1) Pertinent to mention here that complainant never claimed for any expert’s opinion in dealing with the negligence in his medical treatment.2) In Kusum Sharama and others Vs. Batra Hospital and Medi....
Res Ipsa Loquitor – It applied the principles of res ipsa loquitor as no proper care was exercised during and after surgery and thus negligence on the part of OPs is writ large.
Medical professionals must adhere to established standards of practice; failing to do so constitutes negligence, justifying compensation to affected patients.
(1) Improper treatment on basis of commonly undetected injuries termed as limited negligence, not medical negligence. (2) Patient deserves compensation due to lifetime impairment due to misdiagnoses.....
(1) Definition of Negligence – Following the Jacob Mathew and Kusum Sharma precedents, negligence is defined as a breach of duty through omission or commission that a “reasonably competent” professio....
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.