National Consumer Commission Holds Janak Surgicare Liable For Deficiency In Service For Causing The Death Of A Patient During A Surgical Procedure

Contentions of the Complainant

The complainant's wife sought medical attention at Janak Surgicare Hospital (OP 1/Hospital) and was examined by Dr. Janak Raj Arora(OP 2/ Doctor), who diagnosed her with Ch. Cholecystitis and Cholelithiasis. During surgery at the hospital, the patient suffered a portal vein injury, leading to a deterioration in her condition. Due to a lack of necessary facilities, she was transferred to PGI, Chandigarh, and then to Fortis Hospital, Mohali, where she eventually passed away due to a delay in vascular repair and significant blood loss. Additionally, the hospital had erroneously claimed that there were no vascular surgeons available in Patiala, but it was later found that such facilities were indeed accessible at Amar Hospital, Patiala. The complainant, as the legal heir of the deceased, filed a complaint against the hospital for negligence and deficient service. The State Commission of Punjab partially granted the claim.

The present complaint is a first appeal by the opposite parties before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The hospital argued that the consumer complaint should not be considered valid. They claimed that there was no negligence in treating the patient and highlighted the qualifications and competence of their staff. They asserted that their team possessed the necessary skills and experience and performed their duties diligently with the assistance of competent medical staff. According to the hospital, the patient's treatment was carried out with utmost care, caution, skill, devotion, and dedication, ensuring it was in the patient's best interest. Additionally, they argued that the complainants are not “consumers” as per Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act because there was no contract or payment involved for the services provided by the hospital. They also pointed out flaws in the complaint, such as the inclusion of unnecessary parties and the lack of a valid cause of action against them.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that the primary issue is centered on whether the allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service leading to the death of the patient are established. And if so, whether the compensation awarded is appropriate. The commission highlighted that while there were minor discrepancies in the dates, it was undisputed that the patient was admitted to the hospital and underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy to remove her gallbladder. During the procedure, it had to be converted into open surgery. It was acknowledged that she suffered a portal vein linear cut injury, causing bleeding into her system. Despite attempts by the hospital to clamp the injury and stop the bleeding, they were unable to repair it, and the bleeding continued. The main question is whether the portal vein injury was a known complication of the surgery, adequately explained to the patient beforehand, or if it was a deviation from standard medical care, resulting in medical negligence and, ultimately, her death. The commission further observed that according to records, during gall bladder removal surgery, the surgeon typically releases it from the liver by clipping and cutting the cystic duct and artery, the primary blood supply to the gallbladder. However, cutting the common bile duct isn't part of the procedure, and if left unrepaired, it could cause serious harm to the patient. It was established that the doctor performed both laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy during the course of his employment, making the hospital vicariously liable. The Commission emphasized that while medical professionals aren't expected to possess the highest level of skills at all times, they are obligated to provide reasonable skill and care. The commission referred to the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors, wherein the Supreme Court discussed criminal and civil negligence and the role of expert witnesses. In this case, it's clear that the patient sustained the injury during her admission and surgery at the hospital, leading to her death the following day. The complainant successfully proved, on a balance of probabilities, the negligence alleged against the hospital.

The commission upheld the state commission's order and directed the hospital to pay Rs.40,00,000 as compensation, in lumpsum for mental agony, and harassment and deposit Rs.15,00,000 in the shape of FDRs in a nationalized Bank, in favor of the children of the deceased. The commission further directed the hospital to pay Rs.20,000 as the cost of proceeding.

Case Title: Dr. Janak Raj Arora & Anr. Vs. Janak Surgicare

Case Number: F.A. No. 2210/2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order