NCDRC Absolves Hospital and Doctor From Medical Negligence In A Case Of Hysterectomy Leading To Vesicovaginal Fistula

The commission also referred to the opinion of the expert committee set up by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Nadia at Krishnanagar while dismissing the complaint, which opined that since the choice of operation at carnival hospital was justified and post operative VVF is a known complication of TAH with BSO in the background of post LUCS adhesion, it cannot be concluded based on the available evidences that VVF resulted from any negligence in operation. The bench noted that "the complainant made just mere averments in the complaint and I do not find by any stretch of imagination proved the negligence by placing cogent evidence. It was necessary for the Complainant to provide the facta probanda as well as facta probantia. In entirety, the opinion of the expert committee establishes the duty of care and reasonable standard of practice from the OPs."

The wife of the complainant had been operated upon, at the SNR Carnival Hospital back in 2013 and suffered post-hysterectomy Vesicovaginal Fistula (VVF). Eventually, the patient underwent a further operation at CMC, Vellore and incurred huge expenditure. Additionally, the complainant alleged that the hysterectomy conducted at the Carnival Hospital was conducted without an informed consent.

The counsel for the Petitioner argued that the couple approached SNER Carnival Hospital for treatment .There was no definite indication of malignancy in the uterus /ovary of the patient (Petitioner's wife) but the hysterectomy was performed unnecessarily. The alternative method of treatment were not told and without obtaining informed consent from the couple , the Hysterectomy was performed under RSBY Scheme for making profit , violating the principles of ethics framed by " Medical Council Of India" and similar organisations.

The bench also perused through the medical records and inter alia orders of the district forum and the state commission and observed that "Both the fora have given concurrent findings of fact and the scope of this Commission in the revisional jurisdiction is limited. I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Orders passed by the fora below warranting any interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

The NCDRC Bench also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta V. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Sunil Kumar Maity V. State Bank of India and Anr and it was held as under:-

"Based on the foregoing discussion and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs."

(DINABANDHU ALUNI & ANR V. DR. ALOKE KUMAR BHUSHAN &2 ORS, Revision Petition No. 331 9f 2021)

Click Here To Read/Download Order