Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 6
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.K. Naik, J
SMT JAYALAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
HOSMAT – Respondent
APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2006 | Complaint No. 73/1998
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NEMO
For the Respondents: NEMO
Medical practitioners must ensure proper health monitoring before surgery, especially for diabetic patients; failure constitutes negligence.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g) and 12 - Medical negligence - Appeal against dismissal of complaint alleging negligence by hospital and doctors - Court found that surgery was performed without proper control of patient's diabetes, leading to gangrene and amputation - Respondents were negligent in conducting surgery without ensuring patient's blood sugar was controlled. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Medical negligence - Standard of care - The court emphasized that the standard of care requires monitoring and controlling the patient's health status before surgery, particularly in diabetic patients, and failure to do so constitutes negligence. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant suffered a leg fracture and underwent surgery despite high blood sugar levels, leading to complications and eventual amputation. The State Commission dismissed the complaint, attributing blame to the appellant for not following medical advice.
Findings of Court:
The court found the hospital and doctors grossly negligent for performing surgery without controlling the patient's diabetes and for inadequate post-operative care, resulting in amputation.
Issues: The main issues included whether the surgery was conducted appropriately given the patient's diabetes and whether the hospital's failure to monitor the patient's condition constituted negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents failed to meet the standard of care expected in medical practice by ignoring the patient's diabetic condition and not ensuring proper monitoring, thus establishing liability for negligence.
Result: The appeal was accepted, and the order of the State Commission was set aside, awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.8.2005 passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short ‘State Commission’) vide which complaint filed by Smt.Jayalakshmi alongwith her husband and minor daughter alleging medical negligence against respondent No.1 – HOSMAT Hospital and its doctors – respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed.
The case as made out by the appellant/complainant is that complainant No. 1 – Smt. Jayalakshmi had a fall/slip in her house on 10.9.1997 resulting in a fracture on her right leg. She was taken to HOSMAT Orthopaedic Hospital – respondent No.1 and admitted the same day. She was hospitalized there until 24.9.1997. The respondents decided to conduct surgery on 18.9.1997, knowing fully well that she was diabetic. On a previous occasion, the General Physician – Dr.Anand Rao – respondent/ opposite party No.4 had suggested that until the sugar level is controlled, it is not advisable to undertake the surgery. On the day of the operation i.e. on 18.9.1997, no clearance had been obtained from the said physician. It has been alleged that the surgery was conducted with undue haste without monitoring and bringing down the blood sugar level to normal standard. The surgery conducted was not successful since the failure of the plate which was inserted in order to keep alignment of the fractured bone straight gave rise to complications resulting in total uneasiness, breathlessness shooting pain etc. The wound did not heal. The patient, however, was discharged even though she had not fully recovered. Since, there was no relief and improvement in the condition of the patient, she was again admitted to the hospital on 8.10.1997 when the doctors removed the plate inserted during the first surgery but there was no relief.
Subsequently, When the husband of the appellant/complainant No.1 approached the doctors in Mallya Hospital, it was found that the patient had developed gangrene on the operated part of the leg and advised amputation to prevent further damage. The complainant/ appellants allege that, in the opinion of Mallya Hospital Authorities, it was not appropriate for respondent/opposite party No.1 – hospital to have taken the risk of conducting a surgery when the patient was found to be diabetic until the sugar level had been controlled. The complainant had no option but to agree to get her leg amputated. Soon after amputation, the wound had healed but at the cost of the patient losing her right leg below the knee level.
It was alleged in the complaint that the respondents/opposite parties have been grossly negligent, firstly on account of undertaking the surgery with undue haste and secondly against the normally accepted medical procedure of awaiting the blood sugar level to be properly monitored and controlled so as to prevent any chance of infection of the wound after the surgery. Holding the respondents/ opposite parties totally careless, indifferent and completely negligent in her treatment, a claim of Rs.7,81,955/- on various counts as stated in the complaint was prayed to be awarded.
Respondents/opposite parties contested the complaint. Written version was filed by respondent/opposite party No.1 which was adopted by two of their doctors ; respondent/opposite party No.2 and 3. Respondent/opposite party No.4 – Dr.Anand Rao, however, filed a separate version.
It was stated by respondent/opposite party No.1 – hospital that the patient was admitted as a case of fracture of lower ¼ right leg TIBIA and FIBULA. She was a diabetic patient with BP 170/100 mmHg. It was further admitted that she was a known diabetic for last 10 years and respondent/opposite party No.4 – Dr.Anand Rao, physician on 10.9.1997 had suggested to postpone the surgery till diabetes and hypertension are controlled. The surgery accordingly was postponed. According to them, the patient suddenly developed breathlessness on 12.9.1998 and had to be treated with oxygen inhalation, drugs a
