Sciatic nerve injury due to intramuscular injection causes Foot Drop in Minor: doctor held liable for medical negligence

Setting aside the previous order by the State Commission, which didn't find fault in the treating doctor, Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal (President of NCDRC) and Dr. S.M. Kantikar (member) in the judgment dated 01.04.2021 noted, "In our view, the District Forum allowed the Complaint on the basis of the evidence and affidavit... It was not merely on assumption and presumption as to the State Commission observed which appears to be erroneous."

Also Read: Esophageal tears during Anterior cervical discectomy: NIMHANS told to Pay Rs 5 lakh compensation

The case concerned a minor patient, around 7 years of age in 2004, who approached the treating doctor for the treatment of fever. Following this, the treating doctor allegedly administered one injection in the left gluteal region by which the patient became unconscious and his left leg became paralyzed. In fact, the patient lost the ability to walk.

Immediately, on the same day, the patient was taken to a second doctor, a pediatrician, who diagnosed it as left foot drop and treated the patient till 15.05.2004. Following this, the patient consulted several doctors, all of whom diagnosed it as foot drop due to post-injection injury.

Later the child was brought to AIIMS, New Delhi on 24.05.2004 at Neurology Department, and later to another hospital dedicated to Physiotherapy. However, he was again diagnosed with foot drop due to injection palsy.

Finally, being aggrieved, the patient filed a complaint through his natural guardian before the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri. The doctor and the insurance company had denied the allegations and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The District Forum had noted the OPD register to be false and fabricated and mentioned that the register showed "manipulation and tempering". The District Forum further observed that "No reliance can place on such like register which are not in sequences and are fabricated."

Finally, relying on human probabilities, the District Forum had observed that "the treatment was taken by complainant of his son from the hospital of respondent doctor who by administering an injection without any precaution and carelessly damaged the lower limb of the son of complainant and he become disabled and prayed for acceptance of complaint."

Partly allowing the complaint, the District Forum directed the doctor and the insurance company to pay jointly and severally Rs. 4 lakh to the Complainant.

However, being aggrieved by the judgment of the District Forum, the insurance company had appealed before the State Commission. This time, the State Commission found no fault with the treating doctor and observed that the complainant hadn't produced any prescription slip to prove that the doctor had in fact given the injection to the patient.

"Thus, without any cogent and convincing evidence the relationship of consumer and service provider is not proved. District Consumer Forum has accepted the complaint merely on assumption and presumption by relying upon the affidavit of the complainant which cannot take the shape of proof," held the State Commission.

Challenging the order by the State Commission, the complainant, through his natural guardian, filed the complaint under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

After listening to the contentions of both sides, NCDRC agreed that from the medical record it was evident that the child suffered foot drop because of the neural injury. The child sought medical help from several doctors and hospitals after the incident. The doctors at different hospitals opined that it was sciatic nerve injury due to intramuscular injection.

The complainant, to prove whether the treating doctor administrated the injection at all, submitted the evidence of an auto driver who took the patient from the treating Hospital to the Pediatrician.

On the other hand, the treating doctor alleged that he was not present in the town on 09.05.2004, the date of the alleged incident. However, NCDRC noted that the doctor failed to produce any cogent evidence to support his claim.

Taking note of the observations made by the District Forum, NCDRC held that "the OPD Register was totally fabricated with missing entries and no continuation of entries for the respective dates."

Addressing the contention of the treating doctor that the complainant hadn't produced any prescription or receipt of Rs. 50/- paid by him, the National Consumer Court observed, "It should be borne in mind as a common practice at village or tehsil area level, no doctor issues either receipt of prescription to their patients."

Thus, holding the treating doctor guilty for medical negligence, the National Commission noted, "In our view, the District Forum allowed the Complaint on the basis of the evidence and affidavit of Complainant and the auto-rickshaw driver. It was not merely on assumption and presumption as the State Commission observed which appears to be erroneous."

As the treating doctor was indemnified by the Insurance company under a professional indemnity, the NCDRC directed the company to pay the awarded compensation to the Complainant within six weeks from the date of order, failing which the entire amount should carry the interest @ 8 % per annum till its realization.

To view the original order, click on the link below.