NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
Krishna Institute of Medical
Sciences Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
versus
B.G. Sreedevi and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.143 of 2014 and First Appeal No.190 of 2014
Decided on 19.12.2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Appeal – Services – Medical Negligence – “Subarachnoid Hemorrhage” - Negligence by training Doctors - failure of duty of care – proof of - It is pertinent to note that, the discharge summary of KIMS is silent about the finding of Subarachnoid hemorrhage. The CT scan of brain dated 11.12.2009 was reported to be hyper dense collection in right quadrigeminal cistern and anterior interhemispheric fissure. It was suggestive of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. The doctors at OP-1 hospital treated the patient symptomatically, but failed to do proper clinical assessment and crucial investigations - It was the duty of treating doctors to rule out the cause of Subarachnoid hemorrhage due to aneurysm. But in the instant case, the patient was discharged within short period of 2 days, it was a failure of duty of care - On facts, The treating doctors failed in their duty of care, not done the CT angiogram to know the cause of SAH, it could have saved the patient as discussed - Thus, negligence is attributed to the treating doctors and the KIMS hospital – Thus, a medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care – Therefore, Appeal filed bv Compliant is allowed. [Paras 11, 13, 22].
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Appeal - Services – Medical Negligence – Quantum of Compensation – How to be computed – The quantum of compensation in medical negligence cases payable based on strict liability will of course depend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf - In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the Complainant did not follow the instructions at the time of 1st discharge on 14.12.2009. The doctrine of Contributory negligence applies and the amount of compensation payable to the Complainants reduces - Comparative negligence, a type of contributory negligence. It is sometimes referred to as “non-absolute contributory negligence” which helps to determine the percentage of negligence on the part of the patient that contributed to the injury. Thus the victim/Complainant will receive less than they claimed, but a percentage of that amount that is proportional to the fault of OPs. The patient himself was a doctor (Dentist) and after discharge for a month he had no symptoms, therefore he did not come for follow-up. Therefore, in the instant case an act of omission on the part of the patient has not materially contributed to the damage – Therefore, the interests of justice would be met, if the amount of compensation is enhanced. Accordingly, the Complainants shall be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs by way of compensation from the OPs. The hospital shall pay 16 lakhs and 9 lakhs shall be paid by the treating doctors OPs-2, 3 and 4 in equal proportion – Appeal by OP dismissed. [Paras 20 to 22].
Result: Appeals Allowed / dismissed.
ORDER
This common Order shall decide two Appeals, one F.A. No. 143 of 2014 filed by the Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. & three doctors and the other F.A. No. 190 of 2014 filed by the Complainant - B.G. Sreedevi & Ors. challenging the impugned Judgment / Order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in C.C. No. 29/2012.
2. The brief facts are drawn from F.A. No. 143 of 2014. For convenience, the parties herein are being referred to as mentioned in the Original Complaint.
3. The Complainant No. 1 - B.G. Sreedevi’s husband - Dr. B. G. Sreedhar a qualified Dental Surgeon (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as the ‘patient”) working in the Primary Health Centre (PHC) in Andhra Pradesh. On 30.11.2009, he met with a car accident and sustained injuries. Immediately he was taken to the Government General Hospital at Kurnool. After first aid, on the same day, he was admitted in Gowri Gopal Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. at Kurnool. On 02.12.2009, the knee surgery was performed for fracture of right superior pole of patella. He was complaining of headache and vomiting. On 05.12.2009, the CT Scan of brain (head) was performed at Shanthiniketan Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd in Kurnool. It revealed haemorrhagic contusion in the left postero-temporal lobe with minimal edema. The patient had continuous headache and vomiting, therefore on 11.12.2009 second CT scan of brain was done. It revealed new findings suggestive of Subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) compared with the previous CT Scan dated 05.12.2009. Therefore, on 12.12.2009, the patient was shifted to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences (for short – ‘KIMS’ the OP-1) at Hyderabad for further management. He was conservatively treated by the Neurologists (OPs-2 to 4) for two days. It was alleged that to rule out bleeding the treating doctors have not done CT angiogram or MRI of brain. The patient was discharged on 14.12.2009, though complaining of headache and vomiting. The patient was taken to his hometown at Kurnool. Thereafter, on 28.01.2010 in the late night he fell down and vomited. He was also complaining of shivering and severe headache, therefore, he was immediately taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and admitted under Dr. W. Seetharam, but subsequently, in the early morning on 29.01.2010 the patient became comatose. As the patient was in the need of brain angiography and ventilator life support, therefore he was shifted to OP-1 KIMS Hospital by Ventilator ambulance at 10 a.m. on 29.01.2010. There at 2 p.m., CT cerebral angiogram was performed. It revealed progressive bleed and large hematoma in the brain. The patient expired subsequently on 31.01.2010. Being aggrieved by the gross negligence causing the death of the patient, his wife and children filed the Consumer Complaint before the State Commission against the OPs and prayed compensation for Rs. 90,00,000/- from the OPs jointly and severally.
4. The OPs filed their reply and raised objection that the Complaint was barred by limitation. It was stated that the OPs had no knowledge of the alleged accident and the treatment taken at Kurnool. The patient was brought to the OP hospital on 12.12.2009. He was in conscious state, no ENT bleed, or seizures. On examination, his vital parameters were normal. The cardiovascular respiratory, abdominal, and neurological systems were normal. The CT scan done at Kurnool showed small size of bleed and neurologically, the patient was stable except for headache. He was managed medically with analgesics and anti-edema medicines. The headache got reduced and he was discharged on 14.12.2009 with advice to come again after two weeks for follow-up. It was further submitted that the patient telephonically contacted Dr. B. Chandra Shekhar Reddy (OP/Appellant No. 4) and told about his wellness and he was attending to his routine work at the PHC. He also conveyed New Year greetings on 01.01.2012.
Spring Meadows Hospital vs. Harjyot Ahluwalia
Arun Kumar Manglik V Chirayu Health and Medicare Private Limited and anr.
(1) Failure of duty of care - It was the duty of treating doctors to rule out the cause of Subarachnoid hemorrhage due to aneurysm. But in the instant case, the patient was discharged within short pe....
The duty of care in medical procedures requires proper monitoring of oxygen supply, and negligence occurs when these standards are not met, leading to patient harm.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient medical evidence to establish medical negligence and the duty of care owed by medical professionals to their patient....
(1) Pancreatitis – Pancreatitis could be detected only much later but OPs cannot be held responsible.(2) Negligence – The patient’s treatment was based on from OP No.3, which further underscores negl....
Medical negligence – Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur get attracted where circumstances strongly suggest partaking in negligent behaviour by person against whom accusation of negligence is made.
Discharge - At the time of discharge from Pai Hospital, the patient was stable, no signs of any complications. Therefore, for the symptoms developed after a week, have no nexus with appendectomy.
Negligence in medical treatment must be proven with concrete evidence, and mere adverse outcomes do not imply failure of care.
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.