Breakage of Implant: Apollo Hospital directed to pay amount of second surgery
Chennai: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Apollo hospitals located at Greams lane, to pay a compensation to a patient whose implant broke, leading to her getting a second surgery done. The hospital besides compensation for mental agony was primarily directed by the court to pay a compensation amounting to the medical expenses done by the patient for the second surgery of Rs 1.16 lakh plus interest
The case is that of a patient, C Kavitha, who met a road traffic accident on 6th November 2005. During the incident, Kavitha got hit by an auto due to which she sustained a grievous injury of fracture to the right arm and was admitted at the hospital after undergoing some investigations at Sundaram Medical Foundation.
The patient was examined by Dr Madhan Mohan Reddy, who diagnosed Supra Condylar fracture of right Humerus with vascular injury. Dr. V. Balaji, Vascular Surgeon also observed the patient.
After undergoing the examination, she underwent Right Brachial Artery repair with vein graft and Open Reduction and Internal Fixation with plate Osteo Synthesis Right Supra Condylar Distal humerus and fasciotomy on the same date on an emergency basis. She was discharged on 11th November. Further the patient was reviewed on 19th and it was observed that the wound had better healing.
On 9the May 2006, Kavitha approached the hospital with complaints of swelling and pain in the right elbow. Later, x-ray revealed that there is breakage of implant and the patient had to undergo Reosteo synthesis and grafting.
The hospital in its defence, stated that there was no negligence. The reason for the 2nd operation was only due to the breakage of implant which may caused due to a fall or overstrained against the medical advised of rest. The hospital further added that the implant used during the surgery was a standard one and recommended by an international reputed company (synthes) which has US-FDA approval. Further the opposite parties state that the complainant did not examined any expert to prove the negligence of Dr. Madhan Mohan Reddy. Mere filing proof affidavit is not sufficient to prove the negligence. Much less medical negligence. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
To this, the court observed that,
The reason for 2nd operation was also observed, to which court added,
Holding it as negligence, the court directed the hospital to pay the second operation amount ie. Rs 1,16,234, plus interest since 2007 along with an additional Rs 25,000 for mental agony suffered by the patient and an extra Rs 5,000 towards cost.
The case is that of a patient, C Kavitha, who met a road traffic accident on 6th November 2005. During the incident, Kavitha got hit by an auto due to which she sustained a grievous injury of fracture to the right arm and was admitted at the hospital after undergoing some investigations at Sundaram Medical Foundation.
The patient was examined by Dr Madhan Mohan Reddy, who diagnosed Supra Condylar fracture of right Humerus with vascular injury. Dr. V. Balaji, Vascular Surgeon also observed the patient.
After undergoing the examination, she underwent Right Brachial Artery repair with vein graft and Open Reduction and Internal Fixation with plate Osteo Synthesis Right Supra Condylar Distal humerus and fasciotomy on the same date on an emergency basis. She was discharged on 11th November. Further the patient was reviewed on 19th and it was observed that the wound had better healing.
On 9the May 2006, Kavitha approached the hospital with complaints of swelling and pain in the right elbow. Later, x-ray revealed that there is breakage of implant and the patient had to undergo Reosteo synthesis and grafting.
The hospital in its defence, stated that there was no negligence. The reason for the 2nd operation was only due to the breakage of implant which may caused due to a fall or overstrained against the medical advised of rest. The hospital further added that the implant used during the surgery was a standard one and recommended by an international reputed company (synthes) which has US-FDA approval. Further the opposite parties state that the complainant did not examined any expert to prove the negligence of Dr. Madhan Mohan Reddy. Mere filing proof affidavit is not sufficient to prove the negligence. Much less medical negligence. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
To this, the court observed that,
” After taking x-ray the hospital initially stated that the implant was broken resulting the failure of 1st operation; requires another one operation; for that the patient has to pay another medical expenses equal to the sum. Further the contention of the patient is that since there is no proper healing of the wound and the fracture of the implant is proves the deficiency in service of the opposite party. The opposite party has not pleaded and proved the reason for breakage of implant leading another surgery.”
The reason for 2nd operation was also observed, to which court added,
”The reason for the 2nd operation (given) was only due to the breakage of implant which may have been caused only due to a fall or over-strained against the medical advice of rest. But on a careful perusal of the records it is seen that there is no fracture or dislocation of the joint except the breakage of implant.”
Holding it as negligence, the court directed the hospital to pay the second operation amount ie. Rs 1,16,234, plus interest since 2007 along with an additional Rs 25,000 for mental agony suffered by the patient and an extra Rs 5,000 towards cost.
Next Story