Unsuccessful Treatment Or Differing Opinions Does Not Equate To Medical Negligence: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant's wife was admitted to Medanta Hospital (Opposite Party 1) for a pacemaker implantation procedure, as advised by the doctor (Opposite Party 2). Despite informing the doctor about the patient's history of stroke risk and medication (Pradaxa), the doctor kept the patient off Pradaxa for 48 hours. After the surgery, the complainant was denied access to the ICU until clearing the bills. When finally granted entry, the complainant found his wife unconscious and unattended, suffering from a life-threatening stroke. The complainant alleged that the hospital's failure to restart the patient's Pradaxa medication earlier after surgery and their negligent conduct caused the stroke leading to paralysis. Additionally, due to unhygienic conditions, the patient developed a pacemaker infection later. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed a complaint before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The hospital and the doctor denied any negligence on their part. They stated that the patient was provided care per her clinical needs and standard protocol. The stroke suffered by the patient was her fourth stroke, which was attended to swiftly, and the damage was not due to the stroke. As a cardiologist, the complainant was informed about the temporary discontinuation of Pradaxa and its restart after 24 hours. Pre-operative tests showed the patient was fit for the uncomplicated pacemaker implantation. It was argued that all the post-operative protocols were followed, and the patient was conscious and showing expected improvements initially. However, the patient suffered a sudden stroke, prompting urgent tests and a successful endovascular mechanical thrombectomy procedure. The patient recovered from the stroke and was discharged in a stable condition.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission observed that the main argument regarding non-administration of Pradaxa leading to the stroke was not supported by the expert opinion from AIIMS, which concluded there was no delay in its administration after the pacemaker implantation. Although the patient suffered a stroke while being discharged from the ICU, prompt action was taken by shifting her to the Cardiac Cath Lab for thrombectomy, and she was discharged two days later, indicating appropriate care. The Commission acknowledged the complainant's anxiety as the patient's husband and a cardiologist but found no proof that the stroke resulted from the pacemaker implantation, considering the patient's chronic condition and history. Citing several Supreme Court case laws, including Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005), Kusum Sharma & Ors. vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors. (2010), Vinod Jain vs. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital (2019), and Bijoy Sinha Roy vs. Biswanath Das & Ors. (2018), the Commission reiterated that medical professionals could not be considered negligent if acting per accepted practice, and mere unsuccessful treatment or difference in opinion does not constitute negligence.

The commission found no negligence on the part of the hospital and the doctor and dismissed the complaint.

Case Title: Jagdish K Sharma Vs. Medanta, The Medicity

Case Number: C.C. No. 1934/2018