SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4453

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
M. Shrekhar, J
Vinod Kumar Dhanda – Appellant
Versus
Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 1000 of 2013



Advocates:
For the Complainant:[Advocate name]
For the Respondents:[Advocate name]

A doctor is not liable for negligence solely due to an unsuccessful outcome; liability arises only if requisite skills are absent or not properly exercised.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(i) - Allegation of medical negligence resulting in patient death during treatment - The court examined the procedures followed by the hospital and the attending physician. Despite the patient's underlying health issues, the court found no deficiency or negligence in the care provided, noting that proper protocols were followed - Failure in patient management was not established. (Paras 1-13)

(B) Medical negligence - Courts require a high threshold to prove negligence in medical practice - Doctors cannot assure successful outcomes; liability exists primarily when requisite skills are absent or not judiciously exercised. (Paras 12-13)

Facts of the case:
The Complainant's mother experienced complications following surgery for a bedsore, ultimately leading to her death due to alleged negligence. The arguments focused on the treatment provided, consent for procedures, and proper adherence to medical protocols.

Findings of Court:
No negligence was established against the hospital or doctors; treatment was aligned with standard medical practices and protocols.

Issues: The court addressed whether proper consent was obtained, appropriate care was given amidst the patient's complicated medical history, and effectiveness of treatments prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found no breach of duty by the medical professionals due to adherence to established medical protocols.

Result: Complaint dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of medical negligence regarding treatment and procedures. (Para 1 , 2)
2. responses and maintainability objections raised by the opposite parties. (Para 3)
3. arguments presented by the complainant regarding standard of care. (Para 4 , 5)
4. observations about treatment protocols, patient care, and medical literature. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. court's perspective on medical negligence standards. (Para 12)
6. final ruling on the absence of negligence and dismissal of complaint. (Para 13)

1. The instant Consumer Complaint has been filed by Vinod Kumar Dhanda, the Complainant under S.21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for alleged medical negligence causing death of his mother during treatment at Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Batra Hospital - the Opposite Party No. 1") and the treating doctor - Dr. Vipul Sud, Surgeon (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 2), who was the Medical Director of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital and Senior Consultant Plastic Surgeon. (In the Memo of Parties, the Complainant has made Dr. Vipul Sud as Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 for different addresses. However, for convenience we refer Dr. Vipul Sud as the Opposite Party No. 2.)

2. The brief facts are that the Complainant's mother Smt. Balwant Rani Dhanda (hereinafter referred to as the "patient") developed a Sacral bedsore and consulted Dr. Vipul Sud, the Opposite Party No. 2 at the Opposite Party No. 1 - Hospital, who advised debridement surgery. He assured that the surgery would be in single setup and the patient would be discharged within five days. The patient got admitted in the Opposite Party No. 1 - Hospital on 24.11.2012 and on the same day and again on 27.11.2012 got operated by the Opposite Party No. 2. Unfortunately, on 28.11.2012 in the early morning, the patient passed away. It was alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 treated the patient casually and failed to provide standard care in the Hospital. The Cardiologist clearance was not taken before both the surgeries. According to the Complainant, at the time of admission, the patient disclosed that she was allergic to Ofloxacin, but from the date of admission, Ofloxacin was administered in the hospital on multiple occasions. The patient also disclosed her past history of Atrial Fibrillation (hereinafter referred to as the "AF") and thromboembolism, for the same she was taking drug Dilezem 120 mg and Acitrom 1 mg (blood thinner) once a day as prescribed by her Cardiologist. It was alleged that the dose of Dilazim was reduced to 30 mg twice daily, therefore, AF worsened during both the successive surgeries. The patient became unstable and her pulse rate was 150 min, but the treating doctor did not give medicine Cordarone 100 mg to reduce the pulse rate below 100 min. It was further alleged that after the 2nd surgery on 27.11.2012 anticoagulant Acitrom 1 mg was not administered and PT / INR was not checked regularly, therefore the patient developed bluish discoloration of toes. Despite knowing that it was a sign of thromboembolism, the Opposite Party No. 2 failed to seek an opinion from the Vascular Specialist but called the Cardiac Surgeon, who prescribed Tab. Pletoz 100 mg. It was alleged that though Dr. R.K. Himthani, the Gastroenterologist prescribed injection Lesuride 25 mg three times a day from 26.11.2012, the same was not given. It was further alleged that during 2nd surgery the Ryle's tube was inserted without consent and the position of Ryle's tube, whether it was in stomach or lung, was not confirmed either by aspiration of gastric contents or by X - ray examination. After insertion of Ryle's tube, the patient became unresponsive and it was conveyed to the duty nurse, but the doctor came after 20 minutes. By that time, the patient was already cyanosed and CPR was started. There was no monitoring equipment in the room. The patient was declared dead at 3.15 a.m. due to cardio






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top