Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 302
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT, S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
BABY SHAISTHA THROUGH LRs. – Appellant
Versus
M/S. WOCKHARDT HEART CENTRE – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 4414 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. Marpu
For the Respondents: Ms. Aditi Dani, Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar
Medical professionals are not liable for complications stemming from standard procedural outcomes unless negligence can be established.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision Petition against dismissal of appeal - Petition regarding alleged medical negligence in cardiac surgery leading to complications - The petitioner underwent surgery but later developed cerebral malaria and other complications, attributed to negligence - Both lower forums ruled against negligence claims. (Paras 1, 5, 12, 14, 16)
(B) Medical Negligence - Definition and Application - The court examined whether the development of malaria was related to the surgery or the care thereafter, and found no lapses or dereliction of duty by the medical professionals involved. (Paras 9, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a minor named Baby Shaistha, underwent cardiac surgery and later developed serious post-operative complications including cerebral malaria, leading to allegations of negligence against the treating physicians.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the medical professionals adhered to the standard of care and that the complications did not stem from negligent conduct.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complications arose due to negligence in surgical or post-operative care.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded there was no evidence to prove negligence; thus, the dismissal of the appeals by the lower forums was upheld.
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdictional basis for the revision petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts of the patient's surgery and subsequent allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of the evidence and expert opinions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. findings of no negligence in the medical care provided. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion drawn on the basis of prior assessments and dismissal of the revision. (Para 15) |
PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 3529 of 2013, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 126 of 2008 was affirmed.
2. For the convenience the Parties are referred as in the Complaint filed before the District Forum.
3. The facts in brief are that the patient Baby Shaistha, for her congenital heart disease, underwent Cardiac Surgery at Wockhardt Heart Centre (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital”) on 07.03.2007 and in the hospital during the course of her treatment, on 16.03.2007, she developed Celebral Malaria with enteric fever (Typhoid). On 17.03.2007 she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 3”) for paediatric ICU care under Pediatrician, Dr. K. Satyanarayan (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 4). The patient was diagnosed as post-operative complications like cerebral malaria, kidney failure and hepatitis. She was discharged on 20.04.2007. Being aggrieved by the negligence during treatment from the all Opposite Parties, the minor Complainant filed a Complaint before District Forum through her father.
4. The Opposite Parties have filed their respective written versions and denied the negligence. They submitted that the Cardiac surgery was uneventful and development of malaria is not related to the cardiac surgery.
5. The District Forum after hearing the Parties partially allowed the Complaint against the Opposite Party No. 3 and directed to refund Rs. 62,000/- collected towards the medical charges, to the complainant with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Complaint. The Complaint against the other Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 2 and 4 was dismissed.
6. The Appeal filed by the Complainant for enhancement of compensation was dismissed by the State Commission.
7. Being aggrieved the Complainant filed this revision petition. During pendency of this Revision Petition Baby Shaistha expired on 14.04.2016 and the legal heirs were taken on record.
8. We have heard the arguments from the learned counsel for both the sides. None present for Opposite Party No. 1. Perused the entire material on record inter alia, the discharge summary of the Wockhardt Hospital and Kamineni Hospital. The short delay in filing this Revision Petition is condoned.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The point for our consideration is that, during post-operative period the baby contracted malaria; was it due to negligence during Cardiac surgery or the care thereafter?
10. If baby Shaistha contracted malaria prior to admission (05.03.2007) to the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital then it would have been detected during pre-operative tests. However, the patient was not exhibiting fever or any symptoms of malaria; therefore during pre-operative check-up the test for malaria was not advised.
11. From the facts on record it is clear that the Opposite Party No. 2 diagnosed the patient as suffering from Cyanotic congenital heart disease with Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD) and Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA) with severe pulmonary hypertension. The Oppos
