Allegations of faulty hysterectomy: NCDRC Dismisses Medical Negligence case Against Doctor
New Delhi: Setting aside the order of the state commission, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has recently dismissed a plea alleging medical negligence by a doctor who performed a hysterectomy on a patient, who later died.This came after the accused doctor filed a revision petition against the common order of the Punjab State Commission.Also Read: WBCERC directs...
Login or Register to read the full article
New Delhi: Setting aside the order of the state commission, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has recently dismissed a plea alleging medical negligence by a doctor who performed a hysterectomy on a patient, who later died.
This came after the accused doctor filed a revision petition against the common order of the Punjab State Commission.
The case concerned a patient who underwent a hysterectomy by a doctor in a Nursing Home, Bathinda in 2005. After surgery, she was made ambulatory (to walk within 12 hours of surgery) and oral feeds within 24 hours, the urinary catheter was put for 48 hours of surgery. She was discharged three days later in satisfactory condition.
However, on the next day due to swelling and numbness in her left leg, she was rushed back to the hospital. Her condition further deteriorated and she was taken to another hospital wherein she was diagnosed as post-hysterectomy DVT with anemia and septicemia. After short treatment, she was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana ("DMC"). There she was diagnosed as post-hysterectomy DVT with septicemic shock with DIC and MOF.
The doctors therein informed that the condition of the patient was due to the negligence of the first hospital where the surgery was conducted. The patient died in DMC later.
The husband of the deceased alleged that the operation was performed negligently by the doctor and no post-operative tests were conducted to rule out complications such as Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and septicemia. Aggrieved, the complainant moved a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Bathinda.
However, the accused doctor and the hospital refused to accept the allegations and submitted that the complaint was frivolous and filed with the intention to blackmail them. The doctor contended that the surgery was successfully conducted with due care as per the standard method and the recovery was good. All required precautions were taken during operation and post-operatively. There is no nexus between DVT and the hysterectomy.
They further added after initial treatment for DVT, the patient was referred to the other hospital wherein she was treated for a short period and referred to DMC, Ludhiana for further management. Subsequently, the patient died due to sudden cardiac arrest on 12.09.2005. The doctor also filed their respective written versions and denied medical negligence.
After considering the submission of both the parties, the district forum ordered the accused doctor to deliver a compensation of Rs.2,35,000/-. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the doctor and the other Opposite Parties filed cases before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the plea and enhanced the total award to Rs. 4,35,000/- to be paid to the Complainant.
After that, the petitioners approached NCDRC for redressal. The Commission referred to the Supreme Court's observation that if a doctor treats " the patient with due care skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence."
The Commission observed;
"post operatively to avoid infection, the Opposite Party No. 1 administered higher antibiotics viz. Augmentin, Amikacin and pain killers. Patient was also advised for early ambulation. However, the State Commission did not consider these aspects. During postoperative period the patient was afebrile, taking oral feeds, passing the stools. On 10.09.2006 the patient was discharged in stable condition. The Pulmonary Embolism is a very fatal condition developed in the instant patient and it caused multiorgan failure (MOF) and subsequently death."
"However, in our view, septicemia appears to be a provisional diagnosis made by the hospital and the insurance company," the court added.
The court also considered the definition of DVT and Pulmonary Embolism before giving the final verdict.
The court further added, " Based on the foregoing discussion, in the given facts and the entire material on record before us, it is not feasible to attribute negligence on the opposite parties. We set aside the Order of the State Commission and allow these Revision Petitions and dismiss the Complaint."
To access the official judgment, click on the link below-
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-142794.pdf
Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .
Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd