Medical negligence not established as the surgical procedures adhered to accepted standards of care and informed consent was secured.

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainants against four Opposite Parties: Opposite Party No. 1 - AIIMS, New Delhi; Opposite Party No. 2 - Professor Dr. Arvind Jaiswal; Opposite Party No. 3 - Dr. Shashank Shekhar Kale; Opposite Party No. 4 - Dr. B.D. Chaudhary Arguments were heard in part on 12.12.2019. vide the Order dated 12.12.2019, for reasons recorded, the Opposite Party No. 4 - Dr. B.D. Chaudhary was deleted from the array of the parties. This was in accordance with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Complainants, confirmed by the Complainant No. 2 in person.
The said Order of 12.12.2019 was not put to review or challenge.

2. Arguments were then heard and concluded on 13.12.2019.
Learned Counsel for the Complainants and for the Opposite Parties No. 1 to No. 3 were also afforded opportunity to file their respective written synopsis (which they filed).

3. The entire material on record has been perused.

4. COMPLAINT:
The Complainant No. 1, Kum. Shrishti Puri (hereinafter referred to as 'the patient') was suffering from congenital spinal deformity. On 20.5.2003 her father Dr. Someshwar Puri (Complainant No. 2) consulted Dr. Rajendra Prasad at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and advised Complainant No. 2 to contact Dr. Arvind Jaiswal (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 2), the Head of Congenital Kyphosis Department at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 1). The patient was taken to the Opposite Party No. 1 who examined the patient and advised urgent surgery and the delay, otherwise, will aggravate the disease.

5. Accordingly, on 3.5.2004, the patient was admitted in AIIMS under the unit head Dr. Arvind Jaiswal and on 5.5.2004 she was operated. It was alleged that operation took long time, the patient was taken to operation theatre (OT) at 9 a.m. and operation completed at 5 p.m. After the operation one junior doctor came from OT and informed the complainant No. 2 that operation was successful. The patient's father went to see his daughter in the recovery room, but she was in semi - conscious state & crying. At 5.30 p.m., he noticed no movements in her legs and same was informed the duty doctors. The CT scan of the operated area was done and after examining CT report, the Opposite Party No. 2 expressed with sorry figure to the Complainant No. 2 and his elder brother, Dr. Sarveshwar Puri that one screw was pressing the spinal cord and as a result thereof the reoperation was necessary for removal of the said screw. It was further alleged that the C - arm was not used during the operation as it was not functioning properly and it was not disclosed by the Opposite Party No. 2. It was further alleged that during any spinal surgery, presence of Neurosurgeon was must, but in the present case, the operation was performed under the supervision of the Opposite Party No. 2 only, who was just an orthopaedic surgeon. After the operation on the insistence of the Complainant No. 2, then only from Neurosurgery Department Dr. S.S. Kale the Neurosurgeon (the Opposite Party No. 3) was called. Thereafter 2nd operation was conducted at 7.30 p.m. in the presence of the Neurosurgeon Dr. S.S. Kale. The operation ended at 9.00 p.m. The patient remained in ICU for 10 days, but no recovery in movements of the lower part of the body.

6. The patient was discharged from AIIMS on 19.5.2004 and as per the discharge summary one screw penetrated vertebral canal and caused Grade -