Needles, pins allegedly left inside chest during Bypass Surgery: UP Hospital, Cardiac Surgeon absolved in medical negligence case

Presiding Member of the Commission, Dr S M Kantikar set aside the order issued by the State Commission and observed that the needles are sharp and by any stretch of imagination, such foreign body certainly will not remain in chest for long 7 years without any symptoms.

In 2003, the patient (a cardiologist) visited the Metro Hospital & Heart Institute for a cardio routine check-up. Based on the reports, a bypass surgery was performed and he was discharged from the hospital. However, after 7 years, in November 2010, the patient began experiencing unbearable pain on the left side of his chest and consulted a doctor who advised a chest X-ray.

The chest X-ray report revealed the presence of Sternotomy sutures and soft tissue staples + Curved metallic shadow seen in the left lower zone. It was alleged that during the CABG surgery performed in 2003, the foreign material as needles and pins were left in his chest. He consulted various doctors and all of them have expressed that the needle could not be removed without a life-threatening surgery.

It was further claimed that the surgery was done without obtaining his consent. Subsequently, the patient moved the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh alleging medical negligence.

Meanwhile, Metro Hospital, the ex-chief cardiac surgeon and the insurance company denied any negligence. They submitted that; "The patient was himself Cardiologist. It is evident that the cause of action arose in 2003 and the complaint was filed after delay of 7 years. The medical record is already destroyed after 5 years. The X-Ray report, on which the complaint relied did not conclusively prove it as any foreign object near to the heart."

They further submitted that the staples and sutures remained in the body without causing any problems or pain, and complainant would not suffer any harm as a result of their presence.

However, the State Commission allowed the complaint partly and observed that,

“In this case taking cognizance of two X-ray report and the evidence, this fact is undisputed that the particle of metal are present even today near heart in the body of the complainant. Hence this fact is it self an evidence to prove the deficiency of ser vice and shows the medical negligence on behalf of the respondents taking cognizance of the above mentioned circumstances, we reach at the conclusion that there is a deficiency of service by the respondents and they are found guilty of medical negligence. The complaint is liable to be allowed partially.”

Counter complaints were filed with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). To resolve the controversy, whether it was a metallic foreign body, the complainant was directed by the Commission to undergo CT Scan of the chest with or without contrast from any medical college (Govt./private) and get the report along with films and the CD recording. Accordingly the as directed by the apex consumer body the complainant underwent CT Scan at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences and filed the CD along with CT films and reports.

It noted;

"The crux of the instant case is whether it was a metallic object (? surgical curved needle) as misplaced in the chest-wall during CABG performed in past. I have examined the CT scan films and the CD, but it was not convincing that the object was a curved needle. Moreover, the needles are sharp and by any stretch of imagination, such foreign body certainly will not remain in chest for long 7 years without any symptoms."

The Commission relied upon the “Discovery Rule” as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.N. Shrikhande vs. Anita Sena Fernandes[1], wherein it was held that the limitation period should be calculated from the date of surgery and not from the date when the complainant became aware of the foreign object.

Consequently, the Commission held;

"The findings recorded by the State Commission, holding both the OP( Metro Hospital and the Ex-Chief cardiac surgeon) guilty of medical negligence, are not sustainable in law. The Discovery Rule is not helpful to the Complainant. The Appeals filed by OPs are allowed and Appeal filed by the Complainant is dismissed. The Order passed by the State Commission is set aside. Consequently, the Complaint is dismissed."

To view the order , click on the link below: