NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Binoy Kumar, Member
Nomeshwar Prasad Baluapuri
and Ors. – Complainants
versus
Dr. Mukund Thakur and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.24 of 2015
Decided on 14.2.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] - Services – Medical Negligence – No deviation from standard procedure – Suppression of Material facts by Complainant - In the instant case, OP-1 adopted the topical surgical procedure with the use of harmonic scalpel technique - It is evident that in the instant case, the initial pathological reports with minor variation did not connote mild systemic disease. The patient was ASA - I category and there was no contraindication for the HSH procedure which was safe and without any bleeding and without any insult to the surrounding tissue. The entire procedure was completed within 15 minutes - In the instant case that the act of Complainant is apparently constitutes Supressio vari and Suggestio falsi. He deliberately suppressed (Supressio vari) relevant and material information in his complaint. In the instant case HSH was a minor topical surgical procedure took about15 minutes - The Complainant could have asked for a Post Mortem about the cause of death, thus had no complaints against the treating doctors. The Medical Board did not attribute medical negligence to the OPs. The question of fabrication won’t arise when the complete set of Indoor case papers were given to the Medical Board for their opinion – Also, simply because a patient has not favorably responded to a treatment given by a physician or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable – On facts no deviation from standard of practice of the OP-1 and OP-2. The patient was examined and investigated properly. The patient was operated after an informed consent under saddle block with HSH as prescribed in the standard textbook – Thus, complaint dismissed. [Paras 10 to 28].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The present Complaint has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Nomeshwar Prasad Baluapuri, father of the deceased & the other Complainants, who are mother, wife and children of deceased (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainants’) against the Zenith Hospital (OP-3) and the treating doctors - Dr. Mukund Thakur, the Surgeon (OP-1) and Dr. V. Alsi, the Anesthetist (OP-2) seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 10 crore for the act of medical negligence.
2. The facts are that Mr. Vineet Baluapuri (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as “the patient”) was suffering from Hemorrhoids (piles) for 6-8 months. Initially, he was under treatment of Dr. S. K. Hajra and on 02.09.2014, he was referred to Dr. Mukund Thakur (OP-1) at Zenith Hospital (OP-3) for piles surgery. The OP-1 examined the patient and the laser surgery for piles was fixed on 05.09.2014. It was alleged that the patient was not fit for surgery. The OP-1 did not see patient’s blood reports; ignored the major variation in ESR and platelet count. The OP-1 brushed aside by telling that it was marginal variation. The Anesthetist, Mr. V. Alsi in his anesthesia record mentioned about mild rise in Serum Bilirubin level which indicates deranged liver functions. After the operation, the patient was shifted to the room. He developed 107oF fever in the night. It was alleged that at around 9 p.m., OP-1 came to see the patient and advised medicines for fever only without antibiotics. On the next day, patent’s BP fell down to 70/50 mm of Hg and it remained same up to 5.30 p.m. The OP-1 was unable to handle the patient’s worsening condition and therefore, he referred the patient to Arneja Hospital, Nagpur. The doctors at Arneja Hospital, on examination, noted the BP and platelet count were low, and informed the Complainant No. 1 about the critical condition of the patient due to multi-organ failure. It was also alleged that the OP-1, as courtesy, did not bother to enquire or to visit the Arneja Hospital. The visiting physician, Dr. Manish Pahukar was called, but the patient breathed his last at 9:00 am on 08.09.2014. As per the death summary, the diagnosis was septic shock with multi organ failure. The Complainants further alleged that the OP-1 filed forged documents to mislead the Commission. The patient was under care of non-allopathic Ayurveda doctors, who were unable to manage the serious condition due to septicemia and multi-organ failure. It was a gross negligence of the hospital (OP-3) and the treating Surgeon and the Anesthetist (OPs- 1 and 2) who hurriedly performed the operation ignoring the crucial lab reports. On 25.09.2014 the Complainant No. 1 filed the Complaint with Ambazhari Police Station, Nagpur, who referred it for opinion to the Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur. Being aggrieved due to alleged medical negligence, the complainants filed the Consumer Complaint to claim compensation of Rs. 10 Crore. The Complainants further prayed for direction to the Opposite Parties to deposit at least Rs. 24 lakhs for 2 years and pay the Complainants Rs. 1 lakh per month till the disposal of the case.
Defense:-
3. The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 have filed a written version and denied the allegations of negligence. It was submitted that the entire complaint was based on misconceived allegations like abnormal blood reports, lack of post-op care and the septicemia resulted due to piles operation. The OPs filed the medical record including the lab reports and treatment given to the patient. It was submitted that the surgical procedure was uneventful and the patient was shifted to room as he was found to be normal in all respects. The patient was found to have developed fever at 6.30 pm on 05/09/2014 and the fever had gone up to be 102°F. Immediately proper medicines and IV fluids were administered. The patient was also taking orally liquid diet. The patient was examined by OP-1 at
SupremeToday
(1) Patient - Simply because a patient has not favorably responded to a treatment given by a physician or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable.(2) Fabrication - The question of fabr....
Known surgical complications like bowel injury during hysterectomy by qualified doctors do not constitute negligence if due care exercised; Medical Council findings post-remand hold great relevance a....
Standard care - It should be borne in mind that the type of medical service offered, the practitioner’s expertise, training, and experience, and even the location where the treatment took place may a....
In medical negligence, res ipsa loquitur applies to unexplained post-surgical perforations shifting burden to prove non-negligence; doctor's death abates personal liability against heirs; hospital vi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complainants successfully proved medical negligence on the part of the treating surgeon, leading to the patient's death. The court relied ....
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.