Nut And Bolt Found In Woman’s Abdomen After 12 Years Of Surgery, NCDRC Upholds Compensation Of Rs. 13.77 Lakhs

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Justice Sudipahluwalia (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) upheld the order of the Puducherry State Commission which held Clinic Nallam (Puducherry) and its doctor liable for negligence and deficiency in service. They were held liable for leaving a ‘nut and bolt’ inside the patient’s abdomen while performing surgery. As a result, the NCDRC ordered them to pay Rs. 13,77,000/- in total to cover the patient’s expenses, hardships and legal costs. 

Brief Facts:

A. Helen Victoria (“Complainant”) underwent an abdominal hysterectomy at the M/s Clinic Nallam (“Clinic”). The surgery was performed by Dr. V. Nallam (“Doctor”), assisted by Dr. Sreeramamurthy (“Assistant Doctor”). Post-surgery, the Complainant faced various health issues, leading to her admission to the Intensive Care Unit in July 1991. Subsequently, she experienced prolonged health complications, including severe headaches, stomachaches, and urinary tract infections. The Complainant sought medical help from various doctors over the years, and in 2003, a foreign object (Nut and Bolt) was discovered in her abdomen, allegedly left behind during the initial surgery performed at the Clinic. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry (“State Commission”). The State Commission partially allowed the complaint, directing the Clinic and the doctor to pay compensation for medical treatment, engagement of household help, pain and suffering, and costs. Resultantly, the clinic and the doctor filed an appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”).

The clinic and the doctor contested the order, asserting that the complaint was time-barred, as the Complainant was aware of the foreign objects in 1997. They challenged the Complainant’s assertions in light of the absence of crucial medical records and evidence. They also questioned the substantial evidence of the Complainant’s condition from 1991 to 2002 and raised doubts about the necessity of the prescribed treatments. 

The Complainant did not file a reply to the appeal, and the Assistant Doctor denied knowledge of the surgery but acknowledged providing medical prescriptions to the Complainant. 

Observations by the National Commission:

The NCDRC observed that the existence of foreign objects in the Complainant's body was confirmed during an ultrasound scan in October 2003. As the complaint was filed within two years of this confirmation, the NCDRC rejected the appellant’s assertion that the complaint was beyond the limitation period. Concerning the lack of evidence, the NCDRC noted that the Complainant had produced documentary evidence of the surgery, medical prescriptions, and other relevant records. While the clinic and the doctor contested the authenticity of these documents, they failed to present any counter-evidence or raise objections during the proceedings, weakening their credibility. The NCDRC further referred to other circumstantial evidence such as the testimony of the Complainant’s son which further solidified the Complainant’s allegations.

Consequently, the NCDRC concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the State Commission's order. Therefore, it upheld the State Commission’s direction to the clinic and the doctor to pay a sum of Rs. 6 Lakhs to the Complainant towards the cost of medical treatment. Recognizing the impact of the medical issues on the Complainant's daily life, the NCDRC further directed the clinic to pay Rs. 72,000/- to cover the engagement of a household servant maid for 12 years. A sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was also paid to address the Complainant's pain, loss of normal life, and the challenges faced due to the alleged negligence and deficiency in service by the Complainant and Rs. 5,000/- towards the costs incurred by the Complainant in pursuing the complaint.

Case Title: Clinic Nallam and Anr. vs A Helen Victoria and Anr.

Case No.: First Appeal No. 296 of 2012

Advocate for the Complainant: Senthil Jagadeeshan and Sajal Jain

Advocate for the Respondent: Akur Raj, Nikita Raj, Tushar Bhalla and Sarthak Dora

Click Here To Read/Download Order