Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 842
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. Agrawal, PRESIDENT, S.M. Kantikar, MEMBER, BINOY KUMAR, MEMBER
DR. REBA MODAK & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
SANKARA NETHRALAYA & ORS. – Respondent
Consumer Case No. 155 of 2001
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Partha Sil, Advocate, Mr. Soumya Dutta, Advocate, Mr. Tavish B. Prasad, Advocate, Mr. G. S. Modak
For the Respondents:Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Advocate, Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Advocate, Mr. S. Hari Haran, Advocate, Mr. Arvindh Gupa, Advocate
Medical professionals must adhere to a standard of care in treatment; failure results in liability for negligent conduct causing harm.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21 - Medical negligence - Complaint filed by parents for negligence causing death of their child during surgery - Hospital's duty of care examined - The Court held the hospital vicariously liable for negligence of doctors involved in the surgery, noting failures in monitoring and administering anesthesia. (Paras 26, 30, 31)
(B) Liability of Healthcare Providers - The standard of care required from medical professionals was outlined, emphasizing that negligent conduct resulting in harm can attract liability under tort law. (Paras 25, 27)
(C) Compensation - Established that loss of life requires just compensation based on circumstances and grave implications of medical negligence. (Paras 28, 30)
Facts of the case:
The complaint was about alleged gross negligence leading to the death of a child during elective squint surgery. The child's surgery was improperly timed, and negligence in anesthesia led to cardiac arrest.
Findings of Court:
The hospital was found liable for the acts of negligence leading to the child's death, resulting in an ordered compensation of Rs. 1 Crore.
Issues: Whether the medical practitioners exhibited a breach of duty of care; whether the actions constituted negligence causing death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that inadequate pre-operative care and failure to monitor key vital signs constituted a breach of care owed to the patient in the surgery context.
Result: Compensation ordered against the hospital and involved doctors for medical negligence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of medical negligence in child's surgery. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments indicating negligence in anesthesia and care. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court's assessment of medical standards and practices. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. legal basis for employer liability in medical negligence. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 5. verdict on compensation awarded to the complainants. (Para 30 , 31) |
ORDER
DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
Complaint:
1. The Complainants Dr. Reba Modak and her husband Girija Sankar Modak are the parents of deceased son Master Anamitra Modak. The Opposite Parties are Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai (OP-1), Dr. T. S. Surendran (OP-2) and Dr. R. Kanan (OP-3) the Anesthetist. The Complaint was filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 by the parents of deceased for alleged gross medical negligence and deficiency in service causing death of their only child during surgery for squint correction.
2. The Complainants’ son Anmitra, about 6 years of age (hereinafter referred to as the ‘patient’) for his squint eyes was taken to Chennai at Sankara Nethralaya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OP-1 - Hospital’). Dr. (Mrs.) S. Agarkar examined the child on 12.06.2000 and advised minor surgery to correct the squint. She proposed the name of Senior Surgeon - Dr. T. S. Surendran for the operation to be done on 14.06.2000. The preoperative investigations, blood and urine tests were conducted. On 13.06.2000, Dr. Sujatha clinically examined the child and noticed faint functional systolic ‘murmur’ and chest wall abnormality. The same was brought to the notice of Dr. S. Bhaskaran, a Senior Cardiologist, who further examined the child with some exercises and concluded about no murmur and he also ruled out further need for any tests like ECG, ECHO or Chest X-ray etc. He declared the child “Fit for General Anesthesia”. The surgery was fixed on 14.06.2000. As advised, the Complainants took their child on empty stomach to the hospital at 9.00 a.m., but the bed to the child was allotted at around 2.00 p.m. The child was administered three injections and at about 3.00 p.m., he was taken to Operation Theatre. At about 6.00 p.m. the Complainants were given shocking news by Dr. J. Biswas that their child expired on the operation table. It was further alleged that the hospital issued patient’s case summary after two days i.e. on 16.06.2000. The discharge summary was vague without details of Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and the happenings in the operation theatre. Despite repeated requests, the OPs failed to provide complete medical record. Therefore, they approached the Prime Minister’s Office and, finally after six months (11.12.2000) entire medical record including Post mortem report was handed to the Complainants.
3. The Complainants further alleged that there was excessive gap between the last oral intake and commencement of the surgery. The patient was fed at 6 a.m. with just two biscuits and juice but, he was taken to OT at 3.00 p.m. Thus, the child was kept on fasting for 9 hours 20 minutes, due to which he became hypoglycemic, which could lead to cardiac arrest. Halothane was used as an anesthetic agent which was known to cause bradycardia (heart rate slows down). Atropine was given as a pre-medication in all the cases to prevent bradycardia. The timing and dose of injection atropine is very important to prevent Endotracheal intubation (ETI) induced bradycardia and cardiac arrest. Atropine will have to be administered at least 45 minutes pre-operatively. In the present case, it is evident that the child was not administered the correct dose at right time. There was huge gap between atropinization and actual surgery; it was administered as per the convenient schedule or to accommodate the Surgeon. The Anesthetist failed to intubate, which was the cause of death. The Complainants alleged that on that day, Dr. T. S. Surendran had already completed 16 operations and there was no hurry to operate on the chi
