NCDRC Asks Surgeon & Hospital To Pay Rs 75 Lakh Compensation To Patient Who Lost Leg Due To Medical Negligence

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed a surgeon and a hospital to jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs 75 lakhs to a patient who lost her right leg due to negligence in surgery.

The complaint was filed against Dr. Anirban Chatterjee and Nightingale Diagnostic & Medicare Centre Private Limited, Kolkata.

The surgery was carried out in the year 2015, when the patient was aged 17 years old. The procedure was conducted after the patient developed a lump in the right gluteal region. In 2015, a procedure known as vascular embolization was performed on the patient. However, during the surgery some amount of glue slipped into the main artery of the right leg. This subsequently led to the stoppage of blood circulation in the right leg of the patient and development of gangrene. Ultimately, the patient was shifted to Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. Since the condition of the leg worsened, it had to be amputated to prevent further complications. She was subsequently certified to have 90% permanent disability.

In 2017, the patient, along with her father, filed the consumer complaint seeking a compensation of over Rs. 20 crores from the hospital and the doctor.

The Commission, after examining the evidence on record, found that negligence resulted in the slippage of N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Glue entering into the artery of her right leg leading to stoppage of blood flow and amputation of her right leg. The Commission found that no informed consent was taken from the patient regarding the inherent risks in the surgical procedure. Since the patient had an Arterio-Venous Malformation (AVM), the doctor had the duty to specifically inform her about the inherent risks, rather than take a general consent in the stereotype format.

The Commission comprising Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and J Rajendra AVSM VSM (Retired), Member, observed in the order :

"it was even more incumbent upon the OPs to specifically raise these queries with the patient/ Complainant and the case sheet should have been made accordingly. Based on the determination of risk involved, the patient/ Complainant ought to have been explained the degree of risk and then consent should have been obtained. Further, after obtaining such informed consent, adequate preparations also ought to have been made for the clinical procedures, depending on the risk assessment. No such action as stated is placed on record..."

"It was in fact incumbent upon the medical professionals who possess the requisite knowledge to specifically elicit these details, which has not been done. Therefore the consent obtained in the present case and the assertions made by the OPs in defence are of limited consequence. If the surgery entailed High Risk as asserted by OPs, it was even more imperative for the OPs to elicit the necessary responses with specific questions with respect to the medical history and associated conditions of patient to determine her risk potential and take necessary preventive measures as well as effective measures to deal with the situation of handling such subsequent conditions. This was not done and, after the slippage of the chemical Glue into the artery and the blood flow was blocked, the patient had to be urgently shifted to Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi in very critical condition, where her right leg was amputated."

The NCDRC referred to Supreme Court precedents such as Neeraj Sud & Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 863, M.A Biviji v. Sunita & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931 etc.

The Commission found that the negligence in performing the AVM Surgery by the Opposite Parties is "manifest". The unexpected consequence of amputation of her leg has resulted in severely impacting on the patient's self-esteem, employability as well as living her life with dignity. 

"The patient who suffered the consequences is a girl child and thus the implications are even more profound," the NCDRC said.

The NCDRC also considered that the patient spent Rs.2,00,000 towards the surgery itself and  Rs.7,25,000/- for prosthetic leg, which needs regular replacement.

Case : Jaita Mitra Basu and another v. Dr.Anirben Chatterjee and another | CC NO. 2644 OF 2017

Appearances

For the Complainants : Mr. Alok Saxena, Advocate Mr. Saksham T., Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Dr. Anirben Chatterjee, in person OP-1 Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate for Mr. Srijan Nayak for OP-2

Click here to read the judgment