Newborn suffers amputation of index finger: Doctor absolved of negligence, staff nurse told to pay Rs 1 lakh

However, the judgment dated 15.02.2021, by President of the Forum Mrs. Ravi Susha and members Mrs. Moly Kutty Mathew, and Mr. Sajeesh. K.P has given relief to the treating doctor in this regard. "We are of the view that there was no negligent actions on the part of treating doctor(2^nd OP) by causing intentional delay in reference of the baby child to higher center," mentioned the order.

The case concerns a prematurely born baby, who after being born on 19/08/2011 had been taken to a Neonatal Intensive care Unit (NICU) of the Kannur based hospital in this case. The treating doctor had informed the child's family that the child could be discharged within two days.

After two days, on 29/08/2011, the staff nurse had come to remove the plaster stuck on the cannula of the right hand of the baby. After the removal of the plaster, the baby had allegedly started crying as noticed by bystanders and there had been bleeding from the right hand of the baby. However, the staff nurse had explained that it had been due to a small cut in the baby's nail and there had been nothing to worry about.

However, the child's father had alleged before t,he forum that the baby had been crying even after that but no doctor had come to attend the baby. After getting the information the complainant had rushed to the hospital and following the contact with the hospital management, the doctor had arrived at the spot at 10.30 a.m. Following the examination by the doctor, he informed that two born segments of the index finger of the right hand of the baby were chopped off while removing the plasters by the staff nurse and its borne were projected outwards. The sliced part had been missing and had been later found from the plaster.

Also Read: Mere Error in Judgment not equivalent to Gross Negligence: Consumer forum Gives Clean chit to Doctor after Ten Years

The complainant had further alleged that the doctor hadn't taken the matter seriously and only after constant pressure from the side of the complainant that the treating doctor had contacted the second doctor, a pediatric surgeon. The complainant had then taken the baby to two different hospitals and the possibility of surgery had been ruled out everywhere.

It had been further alleged on the behalf of the child's father, the complainant, that only after returning to the first hospital at about 12.15 p.m. the doctor had informed them about the possibility of microvascular surgery and following this the baby had been taken to a second hospital in Kozhikode. The plastic and microvascular surgeon in that hospital had blamed the complainant for the delay to bring the baby for surgery. Although the doctors had conducted the surgery immediately, they had turned down the possibility of regeneration and the re-plantation of a phalanx of the right index finger as the bone itself had been sliced off. The surgeon had mentioned the same in the discharge summary dated 13/09/2011.

Finally complaining that there had been no improvement after the surgery, the father of the child had mentioned that currently, the bone of the index finger of the child had been in a projected condition causing inconvenience and trouble for the baby's day-to-day affairs.

The father of the child had further alleged that the negligent and irresponsible act on the part of the staff nurse and the delay on the part of the doctor to give advice had led the child's future in darkness. Firstly the staff nurse had hidden the amputation of the baby that had caused the lapse of one hour and then the doctor had wasted time up to 12.30 p.m. without giving proper instruction and guidance to the relatives.

Thus, the complainant had filed the complaint before the Forum under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking a compensation of Rs 20 lakhs by the hospital, doctor, and the staff nurse.

The treating doctor and the hospital had denied all the allegations. The doctor had claimed that he had immediately rushed to the hospital after receiving the news and had examined the baby at that very moment. He also consulted a pediatric surgeon and had referred the child to the surgeon on an emergency basis, without causing any delay at all.

On the other hand, the staff nurse had also all the allegations labeled against her. She further claimed that she had no idea about the admission of the concerned baby to the hospital. Finally, denying to be involved in the incident and causing disability to the baby while removing plasters, she further submitted that she had been only a nursing assistant, not a staff nurse and one Greshma had been the staff nurse in charge of the said ward on the date of the incident. She further alleged that projecting her as the staff nurse had been a combined effort from the management, complainant, and other staff to shift the responsibility upon her.

The complainant, to support his statement, had submitted several documents including a discharge summary from the second hospital, lawyer's notice, charge sheet, medical bills, etc. On the other hand, the doctor had submitted the case sheet of the child. However, the staff nurse hadn't submitted any oral or documentary evidence.

After listening to all the arguments by the counsels for the complainant, treating doctor and the staff nurse, and noting all the documentary evidence that had been filed, the Forum had noted that both the hospital and the doctor had admitted that the premature baby in the question had been admitted at the hospital.

The case sheet of the hospital and the discharge of the second hospital had shown that the staff nurse had accidentally cut the distal end of the right index finger while removing the cannula. On the other hand, the staff nurse had failed to substantiate that she had been a nursing assistant and not a staff nurse and also that she didn't attend the baby. The mere filing of version having contentions denying the allegations of the complainant would not be enough, noted the Forum. Thus from the case, sheet and the Nurses record it had been clear that it had been the accused staff nurse who had been responsible for the said accident.

Taking note of all these facts, the Forum found that there had been gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the staff nurse. She had even tried to hide the fact by throwing the cut segment along with the plaster and also elapsed one hour without any management and attention.

However, while looking at the charges labelled against the doctor, the Forum had found that there had been no complaint on the part of the complainant on the treatment provided by the doctor before the accident. Further, it had been noted that the Case sheet submitted by the doctor had mentioned the time of the accident at 9.45 a.m. As the statement had been written by the doctor himself, the Forum hadn't found any evidence that would prove that the doctor had arrived late and had caused the delay in the treatment of the child. Thus the Forum had given relief to the doctor.

The Forum in its judgment had opined that the staff the nurse had been guilty of gross medical negligence amounting to deficiency of service. Since the staff nurse had been an employee of the hospital, at that time, the Forum had found the hospital vicariously liable for the negligence of the accused nurse.

On consideration of the case, we are of the opinion that 3 OP is guilty of gross medical negligence amounting to deficiency of service. We do not find any direct evidence of negligence against 2 OP. Since 3 OP was an employee of 1 OP hospital , at that time, 1 hospital is vicariously liable for the negligence of 3 OP. 

As the child hadn't been produced before the Commission, the Forum couldn't assess the disability of the child. Thus, the Forum ordered Rs 1,50,000 as compensation for the negligence on the part of the staff nurse. Out of the whole amount, Rs. 1,00,000 would be paid by the nurse and Rs. 50,000 by the hospital. Rs.60579/- the medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings would be shared in equal proportion by the hospital and the nurse. Thus, the Forum had ordered to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

Also Read: No surgery despite consent: Consumer forum absolves orthopaedic surgeon, hospital of medical negligence, deficiency of service