NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital – Appellant
Versus
Swechha Kothari – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 84/2022 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 25/2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. analysis of medical standards, the duty of care, and the evidentiary value of expert committee warnings. (Para 1 , 3 , 9 , 12) |
| 2. establishing the factual matrix surrounding the alleged medical negligence and the parties' conflicting narratives. (Para 2 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. arguments concerning surgical negligence, the necessity of pre-operative ct scans, and the validity of expert medical committee reports. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 11) |
| 4. principles for assessing fair and reasonable compensation and the liability of indemnity insurance providers. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER
PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
1. Heard Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the Complainants, Dr. Manish Sanghavi, Senior Advocate for Dr. Gupta and for Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital and Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, counsel for the insurance company.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the complaint filed on 03.05.2010 are, that the complainant No.1, Kumari Swechha Kothari, a young girl, had been suffering from nasal problems, including discharge and obstruction. On 10.04.2008, she visited Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital, Udaipur, where she was examined by Dr. A.K. Gupta, an ENT specialist. After a preliminary examination, Dr. Gupta diagnosed her with nasal polyps and advised surgery. The complainant and her father (Complainant No.2, Shri Arun Kothari) were assured that it was a minor routine operation and that she would recover soon. On 11.04.2008, the complainant underwent endoscopic nasal polyp surgery performed by Dr. A.K. Gupta at Geetanjli Hospital. However, it was alleged that the surgery was done without conducting a CT Scan of the Paranasal Sinuses, which is a mandatory pre-operative investigation to determine the exact extent and location of the nasal polyp. According to the complainants, the hospital record falsely mentioned that “CT Scan PNS advised but patient refused,” which was an afterthought and written later in different ink and different handwriting to cover up the doctor’s negligence. Immediately after the surgery, the complainant began to suffer from severe headache and continuous pain. A CT Scan performed on 12.04.2008 at the same hospital revealed that she had suffered a Subarachnoid Haemorrhage (SAH) — a serious condition involving bleeding in the brain. Despite this, she was kept in the hospital and treated only with routine medicines. Further CT scans were conducted on 16.04.2008, 18.04.2008, and 21.04.2008, showing no improvement in her condition. As her health continued to deteriorate, her family sought the opinion of another specialist, Dr. A.A. Shafi, a neurologist, who advised an MRI scan. The MRI report dated 23.04.2008 showed that due to a bony defect at the base of the skull, a part of the brain had herniated into the nasal cavity — a condition known as encephalocele — caused by surgical injury during the nasal operation. The patient/complainant immediately took discharge from Geetanjli Hospital on 24.04.2008 and proceeded to Ahmedabad, where Dr. Deepak Patel performed brain surgery on 26.04.2008 in SAL Hospital. The complainants alleged that because of the negligence of Dr. A.K. Gupta in performing the surgery without a CT scan and without proper care, the complainant suffered permanent brain injury, underwent multiple surgeries, and faced prolonged physical and mental suffering. Her daily life was severely restricted, as she was advised not to drive, not to go near fire or cold water, and to avoid heights and strenuous activity. Complainants claimed that this amounted to gross medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the hospital and the doctor. The complainants sought ₹1,84,284/- towards medical expenses incurred during the treatment and ₹27,50,000/- towards mental agony, physical harassment, and loss of normal life-style, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment of the treatment expenses of Complainant No.1.
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab
Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. Jaspal Singh
Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq
Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh
Kunal Saha v. Sukumar Mukherjee
Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.