Patient suffered cardiac arrest after Endoscopic Polypectomy: SC Upholds Deficiency in Service

New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order directing six Chhattisgarh-based doctors to pay compensation for the deficiency in service committed while conducting an Endoscopic Polypectomy procedure on a patient and further while providing her follow-up treatment.

Suffering a cardiac arrest after the procedure, the patient died. Accordingly, the NCDRC bench directed the doctors involved in the treatment to pay Rs 4,50,000 to the complainants, refund Rs 1,20,000 spent on medical treatment and pay Rs 20,000 as legal costs.

The history of the case goes back to 2001 when the complainant's wife was admitted to the treating hospital managed by Dr. Memon for the treatment of Nasal Polyps. On 17.08.2001, an Endoscopic Polypectomy was performed. However, the patient suffered from Cardiac Arrest soon after the procedure was completed. Since the treating nursing home did not have a ventilator facility, the patient was shifted to another hospital (Dr. Rajendra Banthia's nursing home), where she underwent treatment for 19 days. But her condition remained critical. After being shifted to another hospital (Dr. Gautam Darda's hospital), she died on 07.09.2001.

After this, a plea was filed by the complainant before the District Commission, seeking Rs 14 lakh compensation for the death of his wife for alleged medical negligence.

The District Consumer Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh exonerated all the doctors except for one. The concerned doctor-Dr. Banthia was directed to refund the entire treatment charges of Rs 1,20,000 received by him. Additionally, the Commission had ordered the doctor to pay Rs 50,000 to the complainant on account of deficiency of service and Rs 2,000 as legal expenses. The doctor was directed to pay the interest @9% p.a. from 17.08.2001 till realization.

Both the doctor and the complainant filed pleas before the State Consumer Court, Chhattisgarh against the order of the District Consumer Court. When the State Commission dismissed the pleas, the doctor and the complainant approached the NCDRC bench. Partly allowing the complaint, the Apex Consumer Court had directed four of the treating doctors- Dr. A H Memon, Dr. M Arif Memon, Dr. S Rathi and Dr. Anil Jain to jointly and severally pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation towards medical expenses, loss of love and mental agony. Further, Rs 50,000 compensation was imposed on each Dr. Chandrika Sahu and Dr. Atul Tiwari for giving contradictory CT Scan report, Rs 50,000 on Dr. Banthia for deficiency in service. Apart from this, the bench had ordered all doctors except Dr. Darda to pay Rs 20,000 as legal costs and also refund Rs 1,20,000 as treatment cost.

However, challenging the NCDRC order, 3 doctors approached the Supreme Court bench. A Special Leave Petition was also filed by the complainant seeking an enhancement of the amount of compensation.

It was argued by the complainant's counsel that once a deficiency in service was proved, the compensation had to be assessed by applying the multiplier method. The counsel argued that the deceased being a housewife, her notional income should have been taken for calculation of just and fair compensation. It was also submitted that the National Consumer Court did not provide any break-up for arriving at the enhanced compensation amount and no compensation was awarded for future prospects, cost of litigation etc.

On the other hand, the counsel for the doctors who were asked to pay compensation submitted that it was not a case of deficiency in service as they claimed to have provided the best medical aid, advice and treatment as per the standard medical protocols. They claimed that despite getting the best possible treatment, the patient could not survive. Therefore, they prayed to set aside the amount of compensation awarded to the complainant.

While considering the case, the Supreme Court noted that it was an admitted position that the Endoscopic Polypectomy procedure performed on the deceased was successful and it was after the procedure that the patient suffered cardiac arrest, due to which she had to be shifted to first Dr. Banthia's nursing home and later to Dr. Darda's hospital. 

The Complainants had alleged that the treating doctors at the first hospital were negligent in not conducting proper pre-anesthetic check-ups before performing the procedure. Further, it was submitted that Dr. Banthia, who is a general physician, treated the patient without referring her to a better medical facility in a timely manner. After considering the submissions made by both parties, the NCDRC bench provided for additional compensation noted the Supreme Court bench.

Taking note of the NCDRC order, the bench noted that the doctors at the first hospital did not challenge the order and notice was not issued for the pleas filed by the three doctors who were asked to pay Rs 50,000 each.

Dismissing these pleas filed by the doctors, the Apex Court bench noted, "Since the amount involved in the S.L.P. (C) Nos.19478-19479 of 2019 filed by the contesting doctors is minimal, no notice was issued by this Court. We do not find any merit in the present Special Leave Petitions as well, which are hereby dismissed."

It also dismissed the plea filed by the complainant seeking compensation enhancement. Opining that the amount of compensation awarded by the NCDRC was reasonable and justified, the Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC order noting,

"From the facts as noticed and on a perusal of the orders passed by the different forums, better care of the patient could have been taken but the fact remains that she did not survive. She was 51 years of age at the time of her death. The National Commission has awarded additional compensation of ₹3,00,000/- in lumpsum to be paid by opposite party No. 1 through LRs and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, along with ₹50,000/- each to be paid by opposite party No. 7 and 8, which in our opinion seems to be reasonable and justified, hence, deserves no further enhancement. The value of human life cannot be assessed in monetary terms whatsoever is awarded is a matter of solace."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/dcmalviyavsdrahmenon-259165.pdf

Also Read: No Medical Negligence in Administering Anaesthesia- Consumer Court relief to UP Hospital, Doctors