Lack of Expert opinion to prove deficiency: Consumer Court Exonerates Pediatrician from Medical Negligence charges

The clean chit for the doctor and hospital came after the Commission also took note of the fact that "there are several reasons for R.O.P. and no expert opinion is available."

Thus upholding the order of the District Forum, the State Commission noted, "In the facts and circumstances, it is held that the learned District Forum has gone to the facts and law in the matter and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this Commission do not find any error in the impugned order and accordingly, it is affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost."

Back in 2013, the complainant had taken his wife to the treating hospital for delivery of child. However, it was alleged that the hospital didn't take care of the patient and nurses were directed to take care instead. With the help of the nurse, the wife of the complainant gave birth. Since the baby was prematurely born, both the mother and the child were under treatment.

Also Read: Doctor does not remove healthy appendix, still directed to pay compensation

Meanwhile, the treating Pediatrician attended the child and since the baby was premature, the Pediatrician gave oxygen therapy along with many other treatments. After the mother and child were both cured, they were discharged from the hospital. During the stay, the hospital found out about the eye problem of the child.

After being discharged, the complainant took the child to an Eye Specialist who referred the matter to an Eye hospital based in Bhubaneswar. It was diagnised that the child was suffering from ROP in his eyes and this was caused due to over oxygen therapy. Therefore, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the treating doctor and hospital, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs 15 lakh and a further Rs 2 lakh for expenses incurred during treatment at the hospital.

On the other hand, the hospital and Pediatrician denied all accusations and submitted that they had given best treatment to the mother and the child and claimed that there was no deficiency of service on their part.

However, when the matter was being considered before the District Commission, it was dismissed and being aggrieved by the order, the complainant approached the State Consumer Court of Odisha.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the child was born under the supervision of the treating doctor and hospital and the eye problem with the child got developed when oxygen therapy was extended to the child of course under the supervision of the Pediatrician. Therefore, any treatment which is defective is only due to negligence.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the doctor and the hospital contended that there are several reasons for ROP in the eye of the child and the oxygen therapy is one of the reasons but there is no occasion to apply excessive oxygen therapy. He further pointed out that even though the hospital and the doctor had advised the complainant to take the child to an Eye Hospital, the Complainant had insisted on continuing treatment there.

After listening to the contentions, the Consumer Court observed that the complainant had not proved through any expert evidence that the R.O.P was caused due to the negligent treatment of the Pediatrician. The State Commission further opined that the complainant should have filed a petition before the District Commission to obtain an expert opinion.

Thus, exonerating the hospital and the Pediatrician of all charges of medical negligence, the State Consumer Court of Odisha noted,

"It is also discussed in the impugned order that there are eight reasons for which the R.O.P. occurs. One of the reasons is extra oxygen administered. The OPs denied to have administered extra oxygen. The complaint is also silent about such fact. However, when there are several reasons for R.O.P. and no expert opinion is available, rightly it is held by the learned District Forum that the complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the facts and circumstances, it is held that the learned District Forum has gone to the facts and law in the matter and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this Commission do not find any error in the impugned order and accordingly it is affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed."

To read the order, click on the link below.