Septicemia Leading to Leg Amputation: Doctor slapped Rs 4.5 Lakh Compensation for Negligence
Chaibasa: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa recently directed a Jamshedpur-based doctor to pay Rs 4 lakh compensation and Rs 50,000 legal cost to a person, who had to undergo leg amputation after septicemia developed in his leg.
It was observed by the Commission that the person met with an accident on 25.02.2003 and the treating doctor applied Plaster of Paris in the leg below the knee two days later. Further, the Commission noted that the Expert Opinion mentioned that Plaster of Paris may lead to compromise in blood circulation which is a known complication of the procedure.
Taking note of this, the Commission noted that the treating doctor did not adopt due practice, procedure and skill while treating the complainant and asked him to pay Rs 4 lakh compensation and another Rs 50,000 as litigation cost.
The case goes back to 2003 when the complainant met with an accident and received injuries in the left foot and ankle. He was admitted to the private nursing home of the treating doctor. The complainant alleged that due to the negligence of the treating doctor, Gangrene developed which was not properly treated by the doctor.
Allegedly he did not get cured, despite long treatment and thereafter he got admitted to TMH Jamshedpur where his left leg was amputated. The complainant alleged that due to the negligence of the treating doctor, he became invalid and sustained enormous loss. Therefore, approaching the consumer court, he claimed compensation of Rs 10,06,000 from the treating doctor.
On the other hand, the treating doctor denied all allegations of the complainant and stated that the complainant did not follow his advice regarding taking certain medicines. Referring to expert opinion, he submitted that he was not negligent, rather the Septicemia developed due to negligence on the part of the Complainant. Finally, because of this, the complainant's leg had to be amputated. He also claimed that the complainant made false allegation against him by claiming compensation of Rs 10 lakh, which was liable to be dismissed, as he was not running any private nursing home at Jamshedpur.
Previously, while considering the matter, the District Commission had directed the treating doctor to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to the Complainant vide order dated 24.04.2008.
Being aggrieved by this order, the doctor approached the State Consumer Court, Ranchi. After considering the matter, the State Commission set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the District Commission to consider the plea of the appellant regarding Expert Opinion in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Martin F.D.Souza 2009, and Jacob Mathews and directed to pass reasoned order after hearing of both the parties. Accordingly, the State Commission directed the Commission to conclude the inquiry within 3 months after receiving the order of the State Commission.
Consequently, the District Commission started the inquiry, and complying with the State Commission's order, letter was issued to Dr. Sunil Kumar, the HOD of the Surgical Department, TMH Jamshedpur, and sought his opinion regarding the medical negligence of the treating doctor. Dr. Kumar submitted his report on 06.09.2013. In his report, Dr. Kumar stated that "Based on documentary evidence, apparently there has been no medical negligence on the part of Dr ****."
Further, the Commission issued a letter on 10.02.2012 by the Commission to the Director of RIMS, Ranchi for constituting medical board to examine all the papers of medical treatment provided by the treating doctor and submit a report. Accordingly, a report was submitted on 08.11.2012. Perusing the report of the Medical Board, the Commission noted that no specific opinion was given regarding treatment rather simply mentioned that detailed clinical findings of the limb are not mentioned in later investigations leading to amputation.
Referring to the Expert Opinion, the Commission observed, "So Dr. Sunil has given specific opinion which is objected by the complainant and submitted that since Dr. **** and Dr. Sunil working together in TMH and as such he submitted collusive report which can't be accepted and acted upon."
The consumer court also noted that the Complainant filed an interrogatory which was answered by Dr. Sunil stating that Road Accident wounds are prone to develop infections depending on factor like severity of wound and time interval between time of injury and medical care etc. Further, the Commission noted that the doctor has admitted that Plaster of Paris application may lead to compromise in blood circulation which is known complication of the procedure and usually due to swelling of limb after injury.
At this outset, the Commission further noted that the accident took place on 25.02.2003 and the treating doctor applied Plaster of Paris in the leg below knee on 27.02.2003 and as per the Expert Opinion, the Plaster of Paris may lead to compromise in blood circulation which is known complication of the procedure and usually due to swelling of limb after injury.
"So apply of Plaster of Paris OD injured leg may stop blood circulation causing infection and developed Septicemia and as such we find Dr **** has not adopted due practice., procedure and skill. while treating the complainant. Case of complainant also finds corroboration from expert opinion. Only on the basis of opinion of Doctor, it can't be held that there was no medical negligence on part of Dr ****," noted the Consumer Court at this outset.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that the treating doctor did not adopt prescribed practice and skill while treating the complainant and due to the deficiency on the part of the doctor, septicemia developed in the complainant's leg just within 3-4 days of treatment.
"He was admitted in TMH Jamshedpur where his leg was amputed due to which he became invalid and sustained enormous physical and financial loss for which Dr. **** is solely responsible. Complainant has successfully established his case against the OP by adducing oral and documentary evidence which can't be discarded on mere technical ground. Further the complainant will have to suffer mental and physical agony throughout his life due to deficiency in medical service given by the OP Dr. **** which can't be compensated in terms of money," noted the Consumer Court.
"Accordingly we hereby directed OP Dr.**** to pay compensation of Rs 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the complainant. Further directed to pay Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) for mental and physical harassment and Rs 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Only as litigation cost to the complainant. OP Dr. **** is hereby ordered to pay Rs 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only to the complainant with an interest of 9% P.A. from the date of passing of this order till its realization," ordered the Commission, asking to make all the payments within 60 days from the passing of this order.
To view the order, click on the link below:
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.