Hysterectomy leading to VVF: NCDRC exonerates Bengal hospital, Doctor of medical negligence
New Delhi: Observing that the complainant did not submit any cogent evidence, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the allegations of medical negligence against Kalyani-based SNR Carnival Hospital and its doctor. While dismissing the complaint, the top consumer court also referred to the opinion of the Expert Committee set up by the Chief Medical Officer...
New Delhi: Observing that the complainant did not submit any cogent evidence, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the allegations of medical negligence against Kalyani-based SNR Carnival Hospital and its doctor.
While dismissing the complaint, the top consumer court also referred to the opinion of the Expert Committee set up by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Nadia at Krishnanagar.
Noting that the Expert Committee has also opined that there was no medical negligence, the NCDRC bench noted, "The Complainant made just mere averments in the complaint and I do not find by any stretch of imagination proved the negligence by placing cogent evidence. It was necessary for the Complainant to provide the facta probanda as well as facta probantia. In entirety, the opinion of the expert committee establishes the duty of care and reasonable standard of practice from the OPs."
The case concerned the wife of the complainant who had been operated at SNR Carnival Hospital back in 2013 and suffered post-hysterectomy Vasicovaginal Fistula (VVF). Following this, the patient got further operated at CMC, Vellore and incurred huge expenditure. Besides, the complainant alleged that the hysterectomy had been conducted without informed consent.
It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that when the couple approached SNR Hospital, the hysterectomy was conducted unnecessarily even though there was no definite indication of malignancy in the uterus/ovary of the patient. The counsel claimed that the couple had not been informed about alternative methods of treatment and Hysterectomy was performed without informed consent under RSBY Scheme for making profit, violating the principles of ethics framed by the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI) and similar Organizations.
When the complainant approached the District Forum, the Forum had sought an expert opinion from Chief Medical Officer of Health, Nadia at Krishnanagar. The Expert Committee consisted of four doctors including one Gynaecologist and Obstetrics, one Surgeon, and one Physician. The Committee submitted the enquiry report that mentioned that
"Since the choice of operation by Dr. A.K. Bhusan at Carnival Hospital was justified and post-operative VVF is a known complication of TAH with BSO in the background of post LUCS Adhesion, it cannot be concluded, based on the available evidences that VVF resulted from any negligence in operation. On perusal of available evidences, the Enquiry Committee is of the opinion that the charges of negligence against S.N.R. Carnival Hospital, Kalyani cannot be established due to lack of conclusive evidence."
While considering the matter, the top consumer court heard the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the medical record, the orders of the District and State Commission. Referring to these, the NCDRC bench noted,
"I do not find any need to interfere with the reasoned Orders of both the for a below. It is pertinent that, the Enquiry Committee concluded that the treatment given by OP-1 and / or the SNR Carnival Hospital did not show any deviation from standard protocol."
''The Complainant made just mere averments in the complaint and I do not find by any stretch of imagination proved the negligence by placing cogent evidence. It was necessary for the Complainant to provide the facta probanda as well as facta probantia. In entirety, the opinion of the expert committee establishes the duty of care and reasonable standard of practice from the OPs," it further noted.
The top consumer court also referred to the orders of the orders passed by the District and State Commission and noted, "Both the fora have given concurrent findings of fact and the scope of this Commission in the revisional jurisdiction is limited. I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Orders passed by the fora below warranting any interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
At this outset, the NCDRC bench also referred to the Supreme Court order in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and in the recent judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.
Referring to these orders, the Apex Consumer Court dismissed the complaint and noted, "Based on the foregoing discussion and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
To read the NCDRC order, click on the link below.
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/ncdrc-judgment-186962.pdf
Also Read: NCDRC exonerates 2 Apollo Hospital doctors from medical negligence charges
