Consumer Court junks Rs 2 crore medical negligence claim against AIIMS New Delhi, Doctors
No Medical Negligence
New Delhi: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, recently dismissed the allegations of medical negligence against the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and its doctors during the ear surgery and treatment of a patient.
After noting that the patient accused the doctors and the hospital of the post-surgery complications, the State Consumer Court held that the allegations were merely vague and did not disclose any specific detail. With this observation, the consumer court dismissed the complaint against AIIMS New Delhi.
The history of the case goes back a few years, when the patient approached AIIMS Delhi for treatment of his left ear. After meeting with the doctors, an 18-month date was given in advance for conducting an ear surgery, and subsequently, on 14.08.2018, the patient underwent the operation.
It was alleged by the complainant/patient that the surgery was conducted by a new trainee Doctor, who had recently entered the medical profession, and no Senior Doctor was present during the surgery. The trainee doctor allegedly performed the surgery negligently, as during the surgery, he took some portion of skin by cutting the area below the Chest, near the heart, which allegedly caused serious pain and a heart attack.
During the said surgical procedure, a black colour portion allegedly emerged at the operation site, above the liver. Then, the Junior Doctor realised that the surgery had gone wrong and called the Senior Doctor, the complainant alleged, adding that consequently, the Senior Doctor discharged the complainant 3 hours post-surgery.
Following this, the complications allegedly increased as the complainant could not sleep properly. Further, he was allegedly facing complications including blockage in vein, chest intestine touch bone, two time heart attack, invisibility of one rib of chest, injury to heart valves or blood vessels and infection and continuous pain.
Further, the complainant claimed that when he was referred to a Senior Doctor, he was not given further admission for treatment after seeking the cut mark/operation mark on the his chest area. It was also alleged that he was not given the desired information regarding the line of treatment. Alleging medical negligence, the patient approached the State Consumer Court in Delhi and demanded Rs 2 crore as compensation.
On the other hand, the hospital and the doctors submitted that due care was taken by the hospital and the doctors in treating the complainant and no medical negligence or irresponsible treatment was done by the hospital. All medical precautions were taken to treat the patient with full responsibility, and no breach of duty was committed that could have caused any injury to the patient .
It was further submitted that the surgical wound healed well and the pinna shape was good, while the local chest wound also healed without any pain on touch, and therefore no negligence was committed by the doctor or the hospital staff.
The hospital and doctors further submitted that the ear and chest wounds of the complainant had healed well. However, the patient continued complaining about the surgical procedure and sought a different opinion from specialists where the complainant was diagnosed with other health issues, such as pulmonary tuberculosis, kidney stone, and chronic pain syndrome. They also claimed that the patient was given all the help from the ENT department, even without proper registration on several dates.
After perusing the records, the consumer court observed that the complainant visited the ENT OD for the first time on 10.04.2017 with the complaint of right pinna deformity post a road traffic Accident. Thereafter, he visited the hospital again on 25.05.2017 to discuss his treatment. The Complainant had discussed his medical problem with Professor of Otorhinolaryngology, and thereafter, it was planned that a surgical correction i.e. Augmentation of pinna helix deformity using rib cartilage or concha cartilage under general anaesthesia, needed to be performed on the patient.
The record further reflected that the patient was also counselled about the surgery, where it was explained to him that the outcome of the surgery may not be as good as normal natural pinna, noted the Commission. Thereafter, surgery was performed on 14.08.2018 under local anaesthesia; the Complainant was given painkillers, antibiotics and other medications, and the surgery was uneventful. It was noted that on the same date, the Complainant was referred to Neuro-Psychiatry opinion as he had a head injury and frontal lobe involvement from the accident, where the Complainant was operated on by neurosurgery to remove a blood clot from brain and was put on antiepileptic treatment for seizure prevention. Other than this, the Complainant was referred to other departments, also like plastic surgery, casualty and chest physician review, pain clinic, medicine and dermatology, since the Complainant had various complaints which were not related to ENT.
"At this juncture, it is pertinent to remark that a perusal of the contents of the Complaint makes it clear that the Complainant has merely made vague allegations which do not disclose any specific detail to carve out medical negligence against the line of treatment provided," the consumer court noted at this outset.
"It is to be noted further that the Complainant has failed to carve out any grounds for alleging negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and has merely made bald averments that the treatment was prolonged and he was given some wrong treatment owing to which he has suffered various ailments like heart attack, chest pain etc. However, a thorough perusal of the Complaint reflects that there is not even a slightest whisper as to administration of which medicines and what treatment carves out a ground for medical negligence. Furthermore, the Complainant has not placed on record any cogent material or expert evidence to show negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. Even otherwise, there is nothing in favour of the Complainant," it further observed, while dismissing the complaint.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/scdrc-aiims-delhi-302782.pdf
