Doctor Not Responsible For Patient Not Favorably Reacting To Treatment; NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal as Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar and Mr. Binoy Kumar as Members disposed of a consumer complaint filed by the husband (Complainant) of a patient who went into coma after her surgery accusing the doctor (Opposite Party 2) and the Hospital (Opposite Party 2) of negligence. The...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal as Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar and Mr. Binoy Kumar as Members disposed of a consumer complaint filed by the husband (Complainant) of a patient who went into coma after her surgery accusing the doctor (Opposite Party 2) and the Hospital (Opposite Party 2) of negligence. The complainant first registered an FIR and thereafter, a complaint was lodged at the NCDRC claiming compensation of 2 Crores INR/- along with 9% interest for negligence. The NCDRC bench dismissed the complaint and deemed it to be without merit.
The complainant approached the doctor (OP No. 2) with his pregnant wife for necessary treatment. Following this, the doctor administered the anesthesia himself and performed caesarian delivery. A male baby was delivered, but following this, the patient went into deep coma. The complainant alleged that the same was due to wrong anesthesia and surgery. Electric shocks were administered to the patient to revive her memory, but they were ineffective. It was further alleged that the doctor forcibly discharged the patient the very next day under the pretext of being referred to higher centers for better care.
The opposing parties denied treating the patient negligently. They also stated that the anecdotal report of the patient was never produced. After examining the patient as soon as the patient was brought in, the doctor discovered that she was fully pregnant, necessitating an immediate operation to save the unborn child. The opposite parties contended that the doctor only administered the anesthesia himself as it was an emergency, and the Anesthetist was not available at the time. According to the doctor, the patient was also suffering from Pre-Eclampsia Toxemia (PET) which was not informed in prior.
The complainant filed an application before the Chief Medical Officer which led the CMO to constitute a committee of experts to formulate a report regarding the issue at hand. The committee concluded that OP No. 2 neglected in performing the operation without an Anesthetist. The Allahabad Medical Association protested this report which led to the formation of another board. The new board submitted that:
- Dr. Agrawal proceeded with the emergency operation under local anesthesia only after obtaining the consent of the relatives.
- As per medical record, proper medicines were prescribed. Patients with PET are prone to go into coma due to repeated convulsion attacks.
- A patient suffering from Eclampsia can go into coma along with several other complications, but both the mother and child are alive in this situation and proper care was given by the doctor in time.
- The insertion of Ryle’s tube after the patient went unconscious was the correct line of treatment.
The board concluded that although the patient went into coma, the treatment was done properly. They also deemed the previous board’s report to be faulty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr. held that “as long as it can be found that the procedure which was in fact adopted was one which was acceptable to medical science as on that date, the medical practitioner cannot be held negligent merely because he chose to follow one procedure and not another and the result was a failure”. The NCDRC bench sided with the previously mentioned judgement and held that the doctor was not negligent in his conduct and thus, dismissed the complaint.
Case Name: Kanchan Singh v. MAA Sharda Hospital & Ors. (Consumer Case No. 1282 of 2015)