Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 115
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. Agrawal, CJ, S.M. Kantikar, J
VINOD KUMAR DHANDA – Appellant
Versus
BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE – Respondent
Consumer Case No. 529 of 2014
For the Complainant: Not mentioned
For the Respondents: Not mentioned
Healthcare professionals must meet standards of care, but are not liable for complex outcomes outside their control.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(i) - Allegation of medical negligence leading to death during treatment at a hospital - It was alleged that the treating doctor failed to meet the standard of care. (Paras 1, 2, 12)
(B) Negligence - Definition and scope - The court emphasized that a doctor is not guaranteed against complexities inherent in medical procedures. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Complainant's mother underwent surgery for a sacral bedsore but allegedly died due to negligent treatment and failure to monitor during recovery. The patient had a complex medical history including Atrial Fibrillation, leading to allegations against the medical team regarding precautions and care.
Findings of Court:
The treatment provided did not demonstrate a lack of reasonable care, and the doctors followed standard medical practices regarding monitoring and medication.
Issues: The key issue was whether the doctors deviated from standard medical practices, particularly regarding consent and treatment protocols leading to the patient's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that medical professionals cannot guarantee successful outcomes but must exercise the requisite skill and care. It was determined that the steps taken during treatment were appropriate under the circumstances.
Result: The Complaint is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of medical negligence due to treatment failures. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. complaint regarding medical negligence leading to patient death. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments presented regarding failure to monitor patient and consent issues. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. arguments about treatment and consent issues. (Para 7) |
| 5. court's consideration of medical standards and practices. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. court's examination of medical records and adherence to standards. (Para 11) |
| 7. reasoning behind affirming the adequacy of medical services provided. (Para 12) |
| 8. final judgment regarding dismissal of the complaint. (Para 13) |
PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
The instant Consumer Complaint has been filed by Vinod Kumar Dhanda, the Complainant under Section 21 (a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for alleged medical negligence causing death of his mother during treatment at Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Batra Hospital – the Opposite Party No. 1”) and the treating doctor – Dr. Vipul Sud, Surgeon (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 2), who was the Medical Director of the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital and Senior Consultant Plastic Surgeon. (In the Memo of Parties, the Complainant has made Dr. Vipul Sud as Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 for different addresses. However, for convenience we refer Dr. Vipul Sud as the Opposite Party No. 2.)
2. The brief facts are that the Complainant’s mother Smt. Balwant Rani Dhanda (hereinafter referred to as the “patient”) developed a Sacral bedsore and consulted Dr. Vipul Sud, the Opposite Party No. 2 at the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital, who advised debridement surgery. He assured that the surgery would be in single setup and the patient would be discharged within five days. The patient got admitted in the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital on 24.11.2012 and on the same day and again on 27.11.2012 got operated by the Opposite Party No. 2. Unfortunately, on 28.11.2012 in the early morning, the patient passed away. It was alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 treated the patient casually and failed to provide standard care in the Hospital. The Cardiologist clearance was not taken before both the surgeries. According to the Complainant, at the time of admission, the patient disclosed that she was allergic to Ofloxacin, but from the date of admission, Ofloxacin was administered in the hospital on multiple occasions. The patient also disclosed her past history of Atrial Fibrillation (hereinafter referred to as the “AF”) and thromboembolism, for the same she was taking drug Dilezem 120 mg and Acitrom 1mg (blood thinner) once a day as prescribed by her Cardiologist. It was alleged that the dose of Dilazim was reduced to 30 mg twice daily, therefore, AF worsened during both the successive surgeries. The patient became unstable and her pulse rate was 150 / min, but the treating doctor did not give medicine Cordarone 100mg to reduce the pulse rate below 100 / min. It was further alleged that after the 2nd surgery on 27.11.2012 anticoagulant Acitrom 1 mg was not administered and PT/INR was not checked regularly, therefore the patient developed bluish discoloration of toes. Despite knowing that it was a sign of thromboembolism, the Opposite Party No. 2 failed to seek an opinion from the Vascular Specialist but called the Cardiac Surgeon, who prescribed Tab. Pletoz 100 mg. It was alleged that though Dr. R. K. Himthani, the Gastroenterologist prescribed injection Lesuride 25 mg three times a day from 26.11.2012, the same was not given. It was further alleged that during 2nd surgery the Ryle’s tube was inserted without consent and the position of Ryle’s tube, whether it was in stomach or lung, was not confirmed either by aspiration of gastric contents or by X-ray examination. After insertion of Ryle’s tube, the patient became unresponsive and it was conveyed to the duty nurse, but the doctor came after 20 minutes. By that time, the patient was already cya
