Medical negligence requires clear proof of duty breach causing injury; mere unfavorable outcomes do not imply negligence if standard practices are followed.

ORDER

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

1. The complainant no. 1 is the eldest son of the complainants no 2 & 3. The complainant no 1 was pursuing the Chartered Accountancy and the B. Com. The complainant no 1 had fallen down from a two wheeler being driven by the complainant no 2 due to skid on 03.08.2016 at about 8.15 am. The complainant no 1 complained severe pain in the right knee and was removed to the opposite party no 2 at about 8.30 am by the complainant no 2. The complainant no 1 was attended by the staff of the opposite party no 2 at about 9.45 am. The complainant no 1 was conscious and received abrasions on the hands, elbow and right knee and the investigation revealed that the complainant no 1 received RTA-soft tissue injury. The complainant no 1 was attended by the opposite party no 3, an orthopaedic surgeon who gave a finding on the Out Patient Assessment Form that there was swelling of right knee, painful and tender with abrasion on right foot and hand. The complainant no 1 was diagnosed with Tibial Condyle fracture of right leg and was admitted in the opposite party no 2 as in-patient. The right leg of the complainant no 1 was operated on 04.08.2016 and a medical condyle locking plate was inserted to his right knee with screws. The complainant no 1 after regaining the consciousness informed the opposite party no 3 that he before surgery was able to move his right foot and fingers but after surgery he was not having any sensation and movement in his right foot and the fingers. The opposite party no 3 told the complainant no 1that he would gain sensation after removal of bandages. The complainant no 1 lost sensation of the entire right leg up to knee. The complainants got panicked over this and again approached the opposite party no 3 and apprised him about the condition of the complainant no 1. The opposite party no 3 reassured the complainants that sensation would be regained after removal of the bandage and the complainant no 1 would be discharged on 05.08.2016. The complainant no 1 was recommended to be discharged on 05.08.2016 with medical prescription.

1.1 The complainant no 1 continued to loss sensation from 05.08.2016 to 09.08.2016. The complainant no1 was rushed to the opposite party no 2 where he was attended by the opposite party no 3 who referred the complainant no 1 to the opposite party no 4, a consultant neurologist. The opposite party no 4 prescribed medicines for a week and asked the complainant no 1 to come again after one week for review and further conveyed that the complainant no 1 after one week might require physiotherapy. The opposite party no 4 also mentioned right foot drop-post trauma on out-patient assessment form and also conveyed that the complainant no 1 would gain sensation in a week after using medicines. The complainant no 2 after two days conveyed the opposite party no 3 that there was no improvement in the condition of the complainant no 1. The opposite party no 3 asked that he may be contacted after completing seven days course of medicines. The condition of the complainant on 13.08.2016 got worse and felt heaviness on the right foot besides unable to move his right leg.

1.2 The complainant no 2 on 13.08.2016 took the complainant no. 1 to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad where the complainant no 1 was admitted as in-patient. The complainant no 1 after conduction of several clinical and other examinations was diagnosed with Right Lower Limb Irreversible Ischemia; Right Popliteal Artery occulusion; Foot Drop; Vitamin D Deficiency and Hyperthyroidism. The condition of the complainant no 1 as per various clinical reports was deteriorated after surgery of right knee at the opposite party no 2 which reflected medical negligence in performing surgery and total mismanagement of post-surgical complications. The complainant no 1 was discharged on very next day of surgery and was not kept under observation as per practice. The complainants no 2 & 3 were never informed about complications of surgery. CT An