Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3588
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R. SUBBIAH, CJ
M. Ameenudeen Alhad – Appellant
Versus
Dr. S. Rajasekaran – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Vasugi Ramanan
For the Respondents: Mr. Dr. B. Cheran, Mr. R. Parthasarathy
Medical negligence arises when a physician fails to inform patients of associated risks of newly used devices, affirming the necessity of patient awareness and informed consent.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act - Deficiency in service and medical negligence - Complainant underwent two surgeries, the second involving an ASR Hip Resurfacing system - Claim for compensation for pain and suffering - Opposite parties contended the surgery was necessary and the device was defect free, later globally recalled - Voluntary recall indicates acknowledgment of potential harm - Compensation awarded for mental agony and personal discomfort suffered by the complainant. (Paras 22, 28, 30)
(B) Medical Negligence - Requirement of disclosure of risks associated with new medical devices - Patients informed about inherent risks in hip replacement surgeries - Opposite party surgeon not liable for recommending a globally used device without prior knowledge of defects. (Paras 6, 12, 29)
Facts of the case:
The complainant suffered from severe pain post-second surgery after receiving an ASR device. He later experienced multiple health issues, ultimately attributed to the device, which was voluntarily recalled due to complications reported globally.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the complainant's difficulties stemmed from the defective ASR device, justifying compensation of Rs.10 lakhs from the second opposite party, while dismissing claims against the first.
Issues: Whether the complainant faced pain due to the implantation of the ASR device, and the legitimacy of the complaint's timing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that high metal ion levels indicated dysfunction related to the device, affirming the relevance of the recall and justifying compensation.
Result: Complaint allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against surgeons. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. opposite parties argue against allegations of negligence and liability. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. complainant's suffering linked to asr device and compensation awarded. (Para 22 , 28 , 30) |
ORDER
This Consumer Complaint is filed by the Complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In other words, attributing medical negligence on the part of the Opposite parties, the present Complaint is filed for the following relief:-
“23. It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Forum may be pleased to pass an order holding the Opposite parties liable for deficiency in service and medical negligence and to direct the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally;-
(a) A sum of Rs.12 lacs towards the deficiency in service
(b) A sum of Rs.12 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony
(c) A sum of Rs.78,220/- towards medical expenses
(d) Cost incurred due to the adverse effect of High Chromium & Cobalt level in blood Rs.1,00,000/-
e) A sum of Rs.20,000/- towards legal expenses and a total sum of Rs.25,98,220/-“
2. It is the case of the complainant that during the year 2004, he suffered severe pain in his LH side hip joint. Therefore, he approached the first opposite party, an Orthopeadic Surgeon in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. After examining the complainant, the first opposite party performed a total hip joint replacement surgery during the year 2004. According to the complainant, post-surgery, he was very comfortable and did not confront any difficulty. However, during the year 2008, the complainant had excruciating pain, stiffness and difficulty in walking. Therefore, he once again approached the first opposite party. The first opposite party after examining the complainant informed him that he has to undergo one more surgery. This time, the first opposite party introduced to the complainant a new device by name ASR Hip Resurfacing system manufactured and distributed by the second Opposite Party. The complainant was reluctant to experiment a new device on him during his second surgery. However, the first opposite party insisted him to use the device introduced by the second opposite party. Therefore, the complainant reluctantly accepted to have the device used during the surgery. The complainant believed that the first opposite party, who is an expert in the field, knows the intricacies of the problems confronted by him and as a patient, he may not be having any such knowledge about the new device. It was also stated by the first Opposite Party to the Complainant that the device introduced by the second opposite party is defect free and forced to undergo the surgery during November 2008. Accordingly, the second surgery was performed and the first opposite party directed the complainant to come for a review in the year 2009.
3. According to the complainant, after the second surgery, he had encountered many problems. When it was informed to the first opposite party, he gave him evasive reply and stated that he would not have the problem by passage of time. The complainant therefore went to his Family Doctor at Trichy, who, after examining him, suggested that the pain endured by the complainant must be due to the surgery in which metal on metal implant was inserted. It was also stated that the surgery done on the complainant in November 2008 was hip implant with a combination of cobalt and chromium. It was also opined that the second opposite party supplied the device for such replacement and the head and socket located in the pelvic are replaced with a prosthetic ball and cup. At this stage, the complainant also came to know from his family Doctor that the second opposite party issued a voluntary worldwide recall of their device on 24.08.2010 after receiving adverse feedback, high number of failures and painful symptoms on account of usage of the device used by number of complainants. However, the first Opposite Party
