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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7352

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, J
Nirmala – Appellant
Versus
Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 124 of 2014



Establishing medical negligence requires clear evidence of deviation from accepted standards, which was not present in this case.

Headnote:(A) Medical Negligence - Standards of Care - The complaint raises issues of alleged negligence and deficiency in the treatment provided by the hospital and doctors leading to the death of the patient. The Complainant claimed that the Radiologists failed to detect pancreatic cancer, while the Respondents contended that appropriate standards were followed in treating acute pancreatitis. (Paras 1, 10-17)

(B) Bolam's Principle - A practitioner cannot be deemed negligent if acting in line with accepted medical practices. If multiple treatment paths exist, the court is hesitant to find negligence without clear evidence. (Paras 14-15)

(C) Expert Medical Opinion - The deliberations from the medical board asserted that evidence did not substantiate claims of cancer detection failure at the initial stage. (Para 13)

(D) The court affirmed that the Respondents acted in accordance with established medical protocols, and thus negligence was not established. (Paras 16-17)

Result: Complaint dismissed.

Table of Content
1. circumstances leading to hospitalization and patient history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. controversy over diagnosis of necrosis versus tumor. (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments from both parties regarding negligence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court’s observations on the medical board's findings. (Para 10 , 11 , 13)
5. legal principles of negligence and duty of care. (Para 14 , 15)
6. final dismissal of the complaint as negligence was not established. (Para 17)

1. The facts:
On 28.4.2012, the Complainant Nirmala's husband K. T. Prasad about 39 years (since deceased, for short the ˜patient'), for his upper abdominal pain, was admitted in M/s Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. at Chennai (for short, ˜OP - 1 / Apollo Hospital'). The Gastroenterologist, Dr. Ubal Dhus, (OP - 2) examined the patient, CT scan abdomen and the routine investigations were done. The Radiologist, OP - 3 reported CT scan as pancreas appears swollen with suboptimal parenchymal enhancement particularly in the body and the tail and small area of necrosis infection at neck of pancreas etc. CT findings were suggestive of acute pancreatitis with diffuse fatty infiltration of liver. It was alleged that the radiologic findings of necrosis (dead cells) was ignored by the OP - 2, thus he failed to detect suspected cancer. The patient remained in the hospital for six days and discharged on 3.5.2012 with an advice to come after six weeks. On 16.6.2012, the patient was examined by the OP - 2 and diagnosed as Erosive Gastritis. Again on 21.1.2013 the patient was admitted to Apollo Hospital with the complaints of severe upper abdominal pain. The CT scan of abdomen was done on 22.1.2013. The complainant alleged that despite certain CT findings, the OP - 2 casually treated the patient for a week and discharged on 29.1.2013. The patient was dissatisfied with the treatment at Apollo Hospital consulted Dr. K. Nageshwar Reddy at Asian Gastroenterology Hospital, Hyderabad. Again an urgent CT Scan of abdomen was done and the films were compared with earlier CT scan done at Apollo Hospital. The doctors therein (Oncologist & Surgeon) opined that surgical treatment was not possible due to advanced pancreatic cancer. Therefore, Dr. K. Nageshwar Reddy suggested the patient to go to USA for further advanced treatment. In the meantime, the patient sought a second opinion from an internationally reputed surgeon Dr. Kendrick at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, USA. He verified all CT films & reports and opined the same that operative management was not possible. Finally, the patient took treatment at Institute of American Oncology at Hyderabad under Dr. K. N. Reddy for some days. Thereafter, he went for one month at Global Hospital, Bangalore for his liver ailment from 1.7.2013 to 02.08.2013 as in - patient. Thereafter, the patient was again taken to OP - 1 Hospital on 03.08.2013 and admitted in the ICU for three days. The doctors expressed their helplessness due to the deteriorating condition of the patient. Lastly, the patient was taken to his native place and admitted in Mother Hospital at Tirupathi, wherein he expired on 07.08.2013. The Complainants alleged that the patient could be saved if properly diagnosed and operated at the initial stage only (i.e. before 16.06.2012). The death of the patient was due to carelessness and negligence of the hospital and the treating doctors. The Radiologists were casual and gave opinion negligently as mild pancreatitis. The Radiologists made two arrow marks to indicate two small tumors which subsequently developed to an un - resectable Pancreatic tumor (Adenocarcinoma). The OPs have violated the national and international guidelines for treatment of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. The OP - 2 failed to perform biopsy and other tests to confirm the Pancreatic Cancer and also, failed to take an expert opinion. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Complaint against the OP - 1 Hospital and the treating doctors - the OPs 2 to 5 for alleged medical negligence causing d












































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top