No negligence was found in medical council order, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital calls Delhi Consumer Court compensation order "Surprising"
New Delhi: Defending itself against the recent order by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which ordered it to pay compensation for medical negligence while treating a patient who underwent splenectomy, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital has now issued a Press Release regarding the matter.
The hospital claimed in the release that no negligence was found on its part or the part of its doctors by the Delhi Medical Council and the erstwhile Medical Council of India. Therefore, referring to the State Commission order dated 09.02.2024, the Council termed it to be "surprising" and mentioned that the order is being studied in detail for further course of action.
"In relation to News published in some News Papers regarding adverse judgement/ order passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, against Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and some doctors in respect of case no. 594/2016 “Basant Lal Sharma Vs SGRH & Ors” , it is humbly clarified that while no negligence / deficiency of services was found on the part of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital & its doctors, by Delhi Medical Council in its order on 30.12.2015, by Medical Council of India in its order on 10.11.2017 and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (Writ Petition order dated 10.10.2018 & order in LPA dated 03.12.2018 ), the order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 09.02.2024 is surprising. The same is being studied in detail for further course of action," the hospital mentioned in its release.
The release from the hospital comes in the backdrop of the recent order by Delhi State Consumer Court. Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that in a recent judgment, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi held Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and its five doctors guilty of medical negligence while providing treatment to a patient who underwent splenectomy procedure.
Holding them negligent and deficient in providing their services pertaining to accurate diagnosis and operative care of the patient, the consumer court ordered them to pay Rs 5,10,000 as damages, Rs 1,20,000 as mental agony and Rs 90,000 as litigation charges.
Such a decision was taken by the Commission after noting that the abdominal ultrasound report, conducted after the spleen removal surgery showed that the "Spleen is normal in size and echo texture."
Although the doctors and the hospital argued that the scan was sub-optimal and the Delhi Medical Council had absolved them of all charges, the State Commission opined that the hospital and the doctors owed a duty of care towards the patient and the whole post-operative treatment of the patient was based on the test reports which turned out to be faulty.
In its order dated 09.11.2016, the Delhi Medical Council had referred to the post-operative PET NCCT scan duplicate report dated 16th June, 2015 which mentioned that the spleen is not visualized consistent with post operative status.
The Council had opined that the ultrasonologist had made a mistake by wrongly reporting that the spleen is normal in size, when the spleen had already been removed earlier. Therefore, advising the ultrasonologist to be careful in future, DMC had mentioned in the order, " Dr *** gave explanation that when the spleen has been excised or is small due to other reasons, the left lobe of liver grows to fill the left subdiaphragmatic space and because of similar echotexture can frequently mimic like spleen, is not a medically tenable explanation. It for sure appears that ultrasonologist who reported the Abdominal ultrasound done on 09th June, 2015 has made a mistake by wrongly reporting that spleen is normal in size, when the spleen has already been removed on 23rd February, 2015. The ultrasonologist is advised to be careful, for future."
Referring to the DMC order, the State Consumer Court mentioned in its recent order,
"A perusal of the aforesaid order makes it abundantly clear that Dr. *** misunderstood the liver to be spleen. His explanation that when the spleen has been excised or is small due to other reasons, the left lobe of liver grows to fill the left subdiaphragmatic space and because of similar echotexture can frequently mimic like spleen, is not a medically tenable explanation. The aforesaid finding prima facie gives rise to an adverse presumption against the competency of the treating doctors in being well conversant with the anatomy of the human body, failing to clinically correlate the findings in the reports for diagnosing the disease and to later provide treatment accordingly."
It also observed that there was a glaring discrepancy in the abdominal ultra sound report and death summary for the period of 08.06.2015 and 18.06.2015. "A juxtaposition of the ultra sound report and the clinical summary as recorded in the death summary project a contradictory picture. The clinical summary states that the liver is observed to be enlarged than its normal size. However, the ultra sound report makes it clear that the liver is normal in size. The aforesaid observations again indicate towards a confused state of conduct, raising an adverse inference against the level of skill and competence of the Opposite Parties," the Commission noted.
Holding the hospital and its doctors liable, the Commission had observed,
"Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be concluded beyond doubt that the conduct of the Opposite Parties fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in exercising skill and competence and the Opposite Parties conjointly failed to take reasonable care of the patient."
To view the Press Release, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/sir-ganga-ram-hospital-press-release-232388.pdf
