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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7414

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R. K. Agrawal, J
Dr. Reba Modak and Girija Sankar Modak – Appellant
Versus
Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai – Respondent
Complaint No. 146 of 2001



Advocates:
For the Complainants: [Names unspecified]
For the Respondents: [Names unspecified]

Medical professionals must adhere to standards of care; negligence in procedures or protocols may lead to liability for damages.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21 - Medical negligence - Allegation of gross negligence and deficiency in service resulting in death during surgery - Failure of anesthetist to administer medication timely and adequately highlighted the breach of duty of care by medical professionals - Respondents found liable for negligence resulting in the unfortunate death of a minor. (Paras 1-31)

(B) Compensation - The court determined the correct quantum of compensation based on the loss of a child and awarded Rs. 1 Crore to the complainants, attributing specific liability among the respondents. (Paras 30-31)

Facts of the case:
The complainants alleged negligence during their son's squint correction surgery, leading to his death, and sought substantial compensation citing gross medical negligence by the respondent doctors and hospital.

Findings of Court:
Respondents failed to exercise the expected standard of care, leading to a breach of duty. Vicarious liability established against the hospital.

Issues: Whether the medical practitioners involved committed a breach of duty leading to the death of the complainants' child.

Ratio Decidendi: The critical analysis pointed out a failure in pre-operative management, specifically regarding anesthesia and monitoring. Established precedent for medical negligence liability principles requiring adherence to the standard of care.

Result: Compensation awarded to the complainants, partially allowed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of negligence during surgery. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. opposite parties deny negligence and assert standard practices. (Para 4 , 5 , 12)
3. examination of medical records and procedures followed. (Para 6 , 7 , 17 , 19 , 21)
4. legal principles on medical negligence established. (Para 25 , 26)
5. compensation awarded to complainants due to negligence. (Para 30 , 31)

1. Complaint:
The Complainants Dr. Reba Modak and her husband Girija Sankar Modak are the parents of deceased son Master Anamitra Modak. The Opposite Parties are Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai (OP - 1), Dr. T. S. Surendran (OP - 2) and Dr. R. Kanan (OP - 3) the Anesthetist. The Complaint was filed under S.21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the parents of deceased for alleged gross medical negligence and deficiency in service causing death of their only child during surgery for squint correction.

2. The Complainants son Anmitra, about 6 years of age (hereinafter referred to as the ˜patient) for his squint eyes was taken to Chennai at Sankara Nethralaya (hereinafter referred to as the ˜OP - 1 - Hospital). Dr. (Mrs.) S. Agarkar examined the child on 12.6.2000 and advised minor surgery to correct the squint. She proposed the name of Senior Surgeon - Dr. T. S. Surendran for the operation to be done on 14.6.2000. The preoperative investigations, blood and urine tests were conducted. On 13.6.2000, Dr. Sujatha clinically examined the child and noticed faint functional systolic ˜murmur and chest wall abnormality. The same was brought to the notice of Dr. S. Bhaskaran, a Senior Cardiologist, who further examined the child with some exercises and concluded about no murmur and he also ruled out further need for any tests like ECG, ECHO or Chest X - ray etc. He declared the child Fit for General Anesthesia. The surgery was fixed on 14.6.2000. As advised, the Complainants took their child on empty stomach to the hospital at 9.00 a.m., but the bed to the child was allotted at around 2.00 p.m. The child was administered three injections and at about 3.00 p.m., he was taken to Operation Theatre. At about 6.00 p.m. the Complainants were given shocking news by Dr. J. Biswas that their child expired on the operation table. It was further alleged that the hospital issued patients case summary after two days, i.e. on 16.6.2000. The discharge summary was vague without details of Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and the happenings in the operation theatre. Despite repeated requests, the OPs failed to provide complete medical record. Therefore, they approached the Prime Ministers Office and, finally after six months (11.12.2000) entire medical record including Post mortem report was handedto the Complainants.

3. The Complainants further alleged that there was excessive gap between the last oral intake and commencement of the surgery. The patient was fed at 6 a.m. with just two biscuits and juice but, he was taken to OT at 3.00 p.m. Thus, the child was kept on fasting for 9 hours 20 minutes, due to which he became hypoglycemic, which could lead to cardiac arrest. Halothane was used as an anesthetic agent which was known to cause bradycardia (heart rate slows down). Atropine was given as a pre - medication in all the cases to prevent bradycardia. The timing and dose of injection atropine is very important to prevent Endotracheal intubation (ETI) induced bradycardia and cardiac arrest. Atropine will have to be administered at least 45 minutes pre - operatively. In the present case, it is evident that the child was not administered the correct dose at right time. There was huge gap between atropinization and actual surgery; it was administered as per the convenient schedule or to accommodate the Surgeon. The Anesthetist failed to intubate, which was the cause of death. The Complainants alleged that on that day, Dr. T.S. Surendran had already completed 16 operations and there was no hurry to operate on the child on the very day itself, wherein high degree of care wa









































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