New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently ordered a Haryana doctor to pay compensation of Rs 8 lakh to the domestic of a patient who died after surgery due to intestinal swelling.
The NCDRC panel confirmed the order of the National Commission after finding that the doctor performed open surgery even though he informed the relatives that laparoscopic surgery would be performed. The operation caused blood poisoning, and after more than a month of fighting for life, the patient died.
While the National Commission awarded the doctor Rs 8 lakh as compensation and Rs 50,000 for mental anguish and agony, the NCDRC Commission reduced it to Rs 8 lakh, finding that multiple compensation for a single deficiency was not justified.
the Opposite Party No. 1 (Dr. Sharda) and Opposite Party No. 4 (Insurer) are jointly and severally ordered to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the appellants with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing from the complaint to its completion within one month from the passing of this order. If the delay exceeds one month, interest @ 12% per annum will be applicable for the extended period ordered for the commission.
Rs.50,000/- compensation for mental agony and persecution is set aside,and it added.
The complaint was presented by the children of the patient. The problem dates back to 2009, when the patient experienced abdominal pain. The doctor’s initial examination suspected possible problems with stones. After that, the patient approached Dr. Sharda, a surgeon, who recommended an ultrasound examination due to the patient’s condition and deterioration.
medicines were prescribed and after reviewing the USG report, the doctor recommended continuing with the prescribed treatment. However, the patient’s condition worsened, leading to nocturnal vomiting and subsequent hospitalization.
The doctor called by the attending physician prescribed more medicine.But the vomiting continued and therefore the doctor advised the candidates to contact Dr. Singh of Holy Help Hospital who recommended laparoscopic surgery after 48 hours with an attending physician. Therefore, the attending physician confirmed the performance of laparoscopic surgery and explained a small incision near Nabhi to remove the intestinal obstruction, estimating the duration of the procedure to be 30 minutes.
Although the doctor initially reported that the patient was in a stable condition after the operation, later the patient’s condition worsened and the patient was taken to Holy Help Hospital and ICCU after Dr. Singhand on a ventilator; advice indicated a 50-50 chance of survival.
The wound of the sick and maternal uncle is said to have oozed profusely, causing concern. The complainant then looked upon request, another doctor, Dr. Grewal, examined the patient at Holy Help Hospital, who showed a 100% risk factor and an urgent need for another operation due to septicemia. chance of survival. Accordingly, Dr. Grewal performed the surgery and after struggling for life on the ICCU ventilation for 42 days, the complainants alleged that the attending physician performed the first surgery during which Dr. Dua administered local anesthesia and Dr. Yadav did the surgery. operation ultrasound examination. However, the complainants argued that it was not a laparoscopic operation but an open operation. Therefore, the appellants claimed that all these three doctors were guilty of negligence and lack of service and demanded Rs.8 lakh with interest besides damages for inconvenience, mental agony legal expenses etc.
On the other hand, the doctors denied the accusations of negligence. It was confirmed that intestinal swelling was detected in the first ultrasound of the abdominal cavity, and further examinations were performed and treatment, including antibiotic treatment, was started. However, due to the unclear diagnosis, open surgery was deemed necessary. They claimed that the nature and risks of the operation were explained to the appellants and written consent was obtained before the successful bowel repair operation.
They further stated that due to the patient and postoperative breathing difficulties, ventilator support was started and he was referred to Dr. Singh for further treatment. After that, the doctors denied any involvement with the patient and his medical care. They argued that there was no deviation from the usual treatment plan and also criticized the complainant and inaccuracies regarding the alleged negligence, time or specific actions that the doctors did not take.
Though the appeal was dismissed by the District Commission, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Consumer Court awarding compensation of `8 lakh with interest @9% p.a. The commission also awarded a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the complainants for mental agony and harassment. The Council of State issued this order after considering the government’s application. However, petitioner Dr. Sharda challenged this order. He argued that the State Council misinterpreted the government’s statement. They said that prima facie negligence cannot be ruled out. To prove negligence, the plaintiff had to provide more concrete evidence to support his claims, the doctor argued.
During discussion of the case, the board of NCDRC referred to the Supreme Court order Dr. Laxman Balkrishan Joshi Vs. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr. and Jacob Mathew Vs. Punjab State.
The NCDRC noted that the attending physician operated on the patient while Dr. Dua administered anesthesia. andquot;He informed the relative that a laparoscopic operation would be performed. However, on February 14, 2009, an open operation was performed. It is also indisputable that the operation resulted in septicemia, ie. the critical condition of the patient, and because of this he remained on a ventilator and died on 04.06.2009. Although OP-1 informed that consent for routine surgery was obtained from the family, the same was not confirmed. Despite possible consent, it is also undisputed that OP-1 performed open surgery on the patient on February 14, 2009, and that the surgery resulted in septicemia. while the patient was in critical condition, he remained on a ventilator at another hospital and died on April 6, 2009, the commission found.
In addition, the Supreme Court of Consumers referred to the claims of the government. in the view of the panel, prima facie negligence on the part of defendant no.1 cannot be lined out and there is nothing on these records to suggest that respondent no1 was apparently negligent. 2 and 3 publicised the government.
While deciding the quantum of compensation, the NCDRC bench referred to the Supreme Court order in DLF Homes Panchkula PVT.LTD.VS D.S Dhanda, where the Supreme Court held that multiple compensation for a single damage is not justified. andquot;Therefore, the award of Rs.50,000/- as accusers for mental agony and annoyance is not justified,andquot; stated the consumer court.
