- Home
- /
- Consumer Cases
- /
- No Conclusive Link Between Spinal...
No Conclusive Link Between Spinal Injury And Negligence During Anesthesia, NCDRC Allows Opal Hospital's Appeal
Smita Singh
21 Oct 2024 1:22 PM IST
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench of Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member) and Mr Bharat Kumar Pandya (Member) allowed an appeal filed by 'Opal Hospital' and two of its doctors. It was held that there was lack of conclusive evidence linking the complainant's spinal cord injury to alleged negligence during anaesthesia, as expert...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench of Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member) and Mr Bharat Kumar Pandya (Member) allowed an appeal filed by 'Opal Hospital' and two of its doctors. It was held that there was lack of conclusive evidence linking the complainant's spinal cord injury to alleged negligence during anaesthesia, as expert opinions and MRI findings did not support claims of malpractice.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant consulted a doctor for abdominal pain, who advised her to get an ultrasound. The ultrasound revealed issues with her gallbladder. Therefore, she approached Dr. Pramod Kumar Rai (“Dr. Pramod”), who recommended some tests and admitted her to Opal Hospital (“Hospital”) for laparoscopic surgery.
During the surgery, Dr Smrita Rai (“Dr Smrita”) administered spinal anaesthesia to the Complainant. With each needle insertion, the Complainant felt shock-like sensations in her right leg. After the surgery, she was unable to move her right leg. Dr Pramod dismissed her concerns and stated that these were just effects of anaesthesia. However, the paralysis persisted, and the Complainant's condition became worse. The doctors also dismissed her requests to consult a neurologist immediately. Subsequently, an MRI confirmed damage to her spinal cord caused due to anaesthesia.
Despite having a delayed discharge, the Complainant felt that there was no improvement in her neurological condition. After having consultations with multiple other hospitals, her spinal cord damage was confirmed. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (“State Commission”). The State Commission directed the Hospital, Dr. Smrita and Dr. Pramod to pay Rs. 15 Lakh as compensation, Rs. 1 Lakh for extra nourishment and Rs. 60 Lakh for permanent ailments and costs to the Complainant.
Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the Hospital filed an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi.
Observations of the NCDRC:
The NCDRC perused the Complainant's submission regarding the improperly administered anaesthesia in a supine position, which caused her shock-like sensations. On the other hand, Dr. Smrita and Dr. Pramod denied these claims and contended that the position was proper and only two attempts were made while administering the injections.
The NCDRC found no evidence supporting the Complainant's claims. It noted that the spinal anaesthesia could not be administered in a supine position. The MRI reports showed degenerative changes but did not conclusively link them to negligence during anaesthesia. Additionally, expert opinions from SPPGI did not confirm any malpractice. The NCDRC concluded that there was no negligence by Dr Smrita and Dr Pramod, and the Complainant's complications were not caused by the anaesthesia.
As a result, the State Commission's order was set aside, and the Hospital's and the doctors' appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Opal Hospital and 2 Ors. vs Damyanti Singh
Case No.: First Appeal No. 402 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms Namrata Chandorkar, Mr Ritesh Khare and Mr Aditya Rana
Advocate for the Respondent/Original Complainant: Mr Akshya Ringe, Mr Ajeyo Sharma, Ms Akansha Mehra, Ms Megha Mukherjee, Ms Nika Tiwari
Date of Pronouncement: 14th October 2024
