Leg Amputation After Hysterectomy due to alleged delay in treatment: Madras HC Slaps Compensation on State

Madurai: The Madurai bench of Madras High Court recently directed the State Government to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to a patient for medical negligence by causing delay in treatment. The patient had undergone a hysterectomy at the treating hospital, however, when she felt pain in her right leg during recovery from anaesthesia, it was amputated.

Even though the HC bench held that there was no medical negligence on the part of the doctors at Virudhunagar District Head Quarters Government Hospital, where the patient was treated, it noted that there was no specialist doctor and the post of radiologist was also vacant. Therefore, when the patient felt intolerable pain in her right leg after the surgery, the hospital failed to look into the pain and even failed to advise her to go for higher treatment.

Therefore, there was a delay in the diagnosis of the blockage of the Arterial occlusion vessel, leading to the amputation of her right leg. Accordingly, holding that there was negligence on the part of the hospital leading to the amputation of the petitioner's right leg, the HC bench ordered the State Government to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to the petitioner.

"Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to disburse a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as compensation to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that there will not be any recovery from the concerned doctors and they are not liable for any charge of negligence," ordered the HC bench comprising Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan.

Also Read: NCDRC upholds Rs 50 lakh compensation on Fortis Hospital Neurosurgeons over Lack of pre-op tests, Informed Consent

The petitioner was admitted to Virudhunagar District Head Quarters Government Hospital for her stomach pain. Consequently, the hospital advised her to undergo immediate surgery. Therefore, the petitioner was admitted to the hospital on 01.05.2019 for the removal of the uterus. On 02.05.2019, the surgery for removing the uterus was conducted. Following this, the patient was shifted to the general ward.

However, after recovering from the anaesthesia, the patient felt heavy pain in her right leg. Allegedly, even though the patient informed the doctors of the treating hospital about this pain, she was not given any treatment for her leg pain. The petitioner alleged that the hospital failed to bring the super speciality senior doctors from the nearby medical college for higher treatment. 

It was submitted, on 08.05.2019, one female doctor visited the petitioner and shouted at the nurse and doctors of the hospital for the delay caused to bring the super-speciality doctors. Immediately, she was advised to take a scan. Thereafter, she was taken to a private scan centre and even then, allegedly, the report was not looked into by the super-speciality doctor for two days since the super-speciality doctor visited the treating hospital.

On 09.05.2019, one Speciality Medical Chief Doctor came to the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and he examined the petitioner and advised for immediate transfer of the petitioner to Madurai Rajaji Hospital due to the petitioner's health condition. It was revealed that the petitioner had blood clot in her right leg and there was no blood circulation throughout the leg.

Following this, the doctor and hospital decided to amputate the petitioner's right leg completely. Therefore, surgery was done and the petitioner's right leg was amputated. As a result, the patient became unable to walk, stand, and move anywhere. Filing the petition, she argued that if the hospital had provided her treatment at the right time, the petitioner's right leg would not have to be amputated.

On the other hand, the hospital and the Government Advocate submitted that the scan report revealed that the patient's uterus was removed by surgery and after that, she was kept under observation and thereafter, she became completely normal. However, on 06.05.2019, the patient required A+ blood and it was transmitted to her. Consequently, she felt severe pain in her right leg and immediately, the Surgeon along with the physician visited the petitioner and she was administered painkillers by injection and was advised to undergo a scan. 

After perusing the Doppler scan reported dated 08.05.2019, it was found that the Arterial Occlusion Vessel was blocked and it had happened to a diabetic patient. Meanwhile, during his visit to the hospital, a vascular surgeon suggested shifting the patient to Madurai Rajaji Hospital for higher treatment. Thereafter, she had undergone surgery and due to advice of the specialist surgeon her right leg was amputated; therefore, the treating hospital argued that there was no medical negligence on the part of the treating hospital. 

Taking note of the Supreme Court orders, cited by the hospital, the HC bench noted that "Therefore, the negligence on the liability can be fixed either a person did not possess the requisite skills which the doctor professed to have possess or the doctor did not exercise with reasonable competence in given case the skill which he did possess."

Accordingly, the Court held, "Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the third respondent and the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition."

However, after perusing the records, the HC bench found that even though the patient suffered severe pain in her right leg after the uterus removal surgery on 02.05.2019, the Court observed that only on 08.05.2019, the speciality doctor visited the treating hospital and advised to go for a scan since the post of Radiologist was vacant at the treating hospital. Accordingly, the patient was advised to undergo a private scan, which revealed that the Arterial Occlusion Vessel was blocked. 

"...however, there is no speciality doctor to look into the scan report. Only on 09.05.2019 the speciality had come from Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and advised her for higher treatment. Thereafter she had undergone surgery and due to which, her right leg has been completely amputated," noted the High Court.

"...admittedly, the petitioner suffered with untollerable pain on her right leg, even then, the third respondent failed to look into the pain even advised to go for higher treatment. Admittedly, the third respondent hospital did not have any speciality doctor and even the post of radiologist kept vacant. After a period of 6 days, she was advised to go for scan, that too, when the speciality doctor visited the third respondent hospital. Further, even after the scan report was not suggested for any consultation. She was asked to wait till the visitation of the speciality doctor from the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital. Only on 09.05.2019 the speciality doctor from Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital had visited the petitioner and immediately advised for higher treatment at Madurai. By that time, the entire blood circulation was stopped and it requires amputation. The amputation was happened only due to delay on the part of the third respondent," further observed the HC bench.

Therefore, the Court opined that "prima facie shows that only the negligence on the part of the third respondent hospital the petitioner's right leg got amputated and now she could not able to even stand or walk."

At this outset, the HC bench relied on an earlier order of the Madras HC in the case of Tamil Selvi Vs. The state of Tamil Nadu and others, and took note of the corpus fund created for the compensation in medical mishaps.

Accordingly, the Court directed the State Government to disburse Rs 5 lakh as compensation to the petitioner, while making it clear that there would not be any recovery from the concerned doctors and that the doctors were not liable for any charge of negligence.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/madras-hc-order-269234.pdf

Also Read: Medical Negligence in Post-Operative Care: Supreme Court slaps compensation on Eye Surgeon