Caution Not Taken Before Administering Anaesthesia: Consumer Court orders hospital, doctors to pay compensation

Amritsar: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Amritsar recently directed the super-speciality hospital based in 2 cities and 3 treating doctors to refund Rs 7.5 lakh to a woman, whose husband went into a coma while undergoing knee replacement surgery and later died.

It was observed by the Commission that the treating facilities and its doctors did not take proper precautions due to which the patient went into a coma and the complainant had to seek treatment for her husband from a Neuro Hospital by spending around Rs 7,50,000. 

Apart from this, the Commission also directed the hospitals and doctors to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation and Rs 10,000 litigation cost to the complainant.

The history of the case goes back to 2022 when the complainant's husband consulted SGL Super Speciality Hospital, Kapurthala for the treatment of Osteoarthritis and the treating doctor after examining the patient advised B/L TKR (Both knee replacement) surgery to both knees in one operation on same day under the anaesthesia.

It was alleged that no valid consent was taken for the line of treatment at the time the patient was admitted to the hospital. Only a few minutes after commencing the surgery, the complainant's husband was shifted to the ICU as his condition became critical. As per the complainant, the patient's health deteriorated because of the negligence of the medical staff of the hospital and the complication arose due to overdose of drug (Anaesthesia) and carelessness and failure to evaluate the patient before surgery. This allegedly resulted in the patient going into Coma/unconscious state of mind within four wall of the operation theatre.

They further alleged that the patient's condition started deteriorating every hour and unable to treat the patient, the treating hospital and doctors referred the patient from their hospital in a hurried manner. Consequently, the patient was brought to SGL Super Speciality Hospital at Jalandhar, where Dr. Mahajan examined the patient. After conducting the tests and assessing the patient's condition and evaluating the poor progress in the general health condition of patient, the doctor further referred the patient to a higher centre for neurotreatment. Allegedly, the treating hospital did not have the facility of neurosurgery as claimed/advertised in the hospital file which also amounted to a deficiency in service.

Following this, the patient was taken to a hospital in Amritsar, where he remained hospitalized for almost a month and even though he was saved, he became intubated, bedridden and crippled and on death bed, alleged the complainant while further submitting that the due to the negligence in medical treatment given by the treating hospital and doctors, the patient is unable to move, do his day-to-day activities and was in a comatose state of mind.

Submitting that they had to spend Rs 7,50,000 approximately on the medical treatment of the patient, the complainant sought a refund of Rs 8,00,000, a compensation of Rs 40 lacs, and litigation expenses of Rs 1 lakh. 

On the other hand, the hospital and the doctors submitted that even though the complainant alleged that her husband was surgically operated, no such procedure was conducted. They also argued that no medical board of doctors was constituted by any competent authority and in the absence of such expert medical opinion, it could not be held that the hospital and the doctors were guilty of medical negligence.

They submitted that the patient was advised for bilateral total knee replacement, a surgical procedure that is standard treatment recommended for patients suffering from advanced osteoarthritis with severe pain. As per the hospitals and the doctors, the patient was explained all the risk, consequences and benefits of the surgery and accordingly consented for the same. 

Claiming that the surgery was conducted only after conducting all the pre-operative tests, the hospitals and the doctors submitted that during the investigations for the surgery, the patient and their attendants had never disclosed to the staff and the doctors that the patient was having any kind of brain ailments/neurological issues.

They also submitted that all the standard operating procedure of the surgery was adopted, the consent of the patient and his family members was obtained and the patient's son was explained of all the possible outcomes of the procedure. As per the hospital and the doctors, during the pre-operative procedures, the patient complained of uneasiness due to which further procedure was aborted and the same was explained to the attendants of the patient in the hospital. Since the ECG showed that the patient was having heart problems, he was shifted to the second hospital. Later, Dr. Mahajan examined the patient, carried out various investigations and it was revealed from the MRI that the patient had old infarcts in his brain and neurological problems, which might have been asymptomatic. 

While considering the matter, the District Consumer Court relied on the law settled by the Supreme Court in medical negligence cases. It relied on the order in the case of Arun Kumar Manglik Vs. Chirayu Health & Medicare Private Ltd., where it was held that the hospital authorities were unable to meet standard of reasonable care expected of medical services as laid down in Bolam Test, then the respondents are very much liable to pay compensation.

Reliance was also placed on an NCDRC order in the case of Bhajan Lal Gupta & Anr. Vs. Mool Chand Kharati Ram Hospital & Ors., where the Commission discussed what was negligence, degree of skill and care required, etc.

Referring to these orders, the District Consumer Court observed,

"The above law squarely covers the case of the complainant as the opposite parties while administering anesthesia did not take proper precaution due to which the patient went on coma and the complainant has to take the treatment of her husband from Uppal Neuro Hospital for the period from 19.6.2022 to 17.7.2022 and spent Rs. 7,50,000/- and in this regard the complainant has placed on record medical record/medical bills of Uppal Hospital Ex.C-3 which the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant alongwith compensation for giving negligent treatment to the husband of the complainant , who lastly died due to the negligence of the opposite parties No.1 to 5."

Accordingly, the Commission ordered, "In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and the opposite parties No.1 & 5 are directed to refund Rs. 7,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization."

Further, after relying on relevant judgments, the Commission decided to award the complainant a compensation of Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 10,000 as litigation expenses.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/amritsar-dcdrc-261077.pdf

Also Read: Doctor Operates on Wrong Eye of 7-Year-Old, License Cancellation sought